• Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 20, 2020 · IPR2018-01154 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 16 is unpatentable as obvious over Kwak; claims 15, 17–18, and 20 were not shown anticipated by Kwak, and claim 19 was not shown obvious over Kwak and Choi 2010.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Our Institution Decision adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Dec. on Inst. 11. Patent Owner does not dispute this issue. PO Resp. 11. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and we find the work experience is commensurate with the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, the ’558 patent requires a degree of knowledge that is specific to mobile device architecture as well as transmission and power circuitry for radio frequency devices. See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1201, Abstract, 1:7–9, 30–31.” slip op. at 7

  • Prior constructionTerm construed petitioner constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. “current sense amplifier” (claim 15) Petitioner offers a claim construction for “current sense amplifier” (claim 15) to mean an “amplifier that produces a voltage from a current,” which is based on the ALJ’s construction in the parallel ITC proceeding. Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1223, 11–12). Petitioner argues that the ITC construction is consistent with the ’558 patent specification and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 35–36 (Ex. 1201, 4:64–66, 5:7–10, 5:18–20). Patent Owner argues that this term does not require construction, but does not contest Petitioner’s contention or our adoption of this construction in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 10. Based on the full record and for the reasons given by the ALJ in the ITC proceeding (Ex. 1223, 11–12), we adopt the construction of “current sense amplifier” to mean an “amplifier that produces a voltage from a current.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “As we discussed in IPR2018-01152 and IPR2018-01153, and incorporate herein (1152 Final Dec. 12–21), the broadest reasonable interpretation is what would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1257. The ’558 specification and the context of claims 6, 8, and 13 and the related language of claim 19 support that the amplifier must be able to receive both the boosted supply voltage and the first supply voltage (a selective boost) as recited in the claims. PO Resp. 35–38; Ex. 1201, 1:42–50, 5:31–49, 8:55– 62, 8:62–9:17, 9:21–36, 10:19–29, Figs. 3 and 5. In light of these findings, we do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments that the plain language of the claim 19 identifies two alternatives that need not both be present. Pet. Reply 3–4. We credit and find persuasive Patent Owner’s evidence that the ’558 specification, which provides context for the interpretation of an ordinarily skilled artisan, refers to the capability of receiving or operating on both voltages at the source (envelope amplifier). See PO Resp. 35–38.” slip op. at 10

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

    “On the full record, Petitioner has not provided sufficient or persuasive argument and evidence that Figure 6 is merely a more detailed implementation of Figure 5 such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would envision them as a single disclosure. Figure 6 specifically discusses a summing circuit operating on input current and offset current that differs from the voltage circuit signals shown in Figure 5. PO Sur-reply 13–14. We also note that feedforward node in Figure 6 differs from that shown in Figure 5. Indeed, Kwak expressly notes the differences and advantages between Figures 4 and 5 (showing summation of voltage signals) and Figure 6, which shows voltage signals converted into current signals before summation, stating that: In CMOS design, although three voltage signals can be added and then integrated as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, the simultaneous summation and integration of the signals at the node Vc, after the conversion of the three voltage signals into current ones, is advantageous, that is, the sensed output current of the linear amplifier, the feedforward current, and the high-frequency current through the ripple filter are added together and integrated at the node with the inverted polarity of the last one Ex. 1211, 2669. Kwak’s disclosure notes differences between the voltage signals of Figures 4 and 5 and the current conversion feedforward teachings shown in Figure 6. See id. On the full record, Petitioner has failed to persuasively establish that “a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination of elements” of claim 15 based on Kwak’s disclosures. See Microsoft Corp., 878 F.3d at 1068. Petitioner’s parallel citations to Figures 5 and 6 and joint discussion of the current summing and integration of Figure 6 and the voltage summing of Figures 5 (see Pet. 42–49), do not establish that Kwak shows the elements of the claim in an embodiment as arranged in the claims. Microsoft Corp., 878 F.3d at 1068–1069. Petitioner’s arguments and testimony evidence (Ex. 1203 ¶ 96; Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 94–96)) fail to address sufficiently the differences between Kwak’s Figures 5 and 6. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Kwak anticipates independent claim 15 or dependent claims 17, 18, and 20.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,698,558 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,698,558
• Hytera Communications Co. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2019 · IPR2017-02183 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7 and 8 were not shown unpatentable under any of the three § 103 grounds because the cited combinations did not teach transmitting on a non-assigned timeslot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “and the specification to determine whether they expressly or implicitly require a specific order. See Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1369–70. Here, we agree with Patent Owner that the language shows that the results of a step are used in the next step; that is, “step 7[b] ‘preparing to transmit a particular payload type in a timeslot’ [comes before] step 7[c] ‘determining whether the timeslot is a current desired timeslot for the TDMA system,’ because the transmitting device looks at the ‘the timeslot’ identified in the ‘preparing’ step to ‘determin[e]’ whether that timeslot is ‘a current desired timeslot.’” PO Sur-Reply 3–4 (quoting Ex. 1001, cl. 7).” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the ordered steps 7[c] to 7[e] require transmitting on an alternate timeslot, that is, a timeslot that is not an assigned timeslot. PO Resp. 7–9. The plain language of claim 7 states that the preparing step of limitation 7[b] is for “a timeslot,” indicating that it is broader than the assigned timeslot of the TDMA system. In limitation 7[c], the claim expressly requires a determination of whether the timeslot in the preparing step is the “current desired timeslot” (assigned timeslot) and selecting (limitation 7[d]) the appropriate synch pattern. The “selecting” step of claim 7[d] requires: “if the timeslot is the current desired timeslot, select[] a synchronization pattern selected from the first set of synchronization patterns . . . otherwise select[] a synchronization pattern selected from the second set of synchronization patterns . . . .” The synchronization pattern that is selected in limitation 7[d] is then used during transmission in limitation 7[e]. Thus, although the claims and specification do not explicitly refer to an alternate timeslot, the claim requires transmitting on the timeslot that is not the current desired timeslot (assigned timeslot). See PO Resp. 19–20; Ex. 2008 ¶ 89.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “arguments are directed to products produced by Petitioner, rather than by Patent Owner, products that were found in an Initial Determination (“ID”) of the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) to infringe challenged claims 7 and 8 of the ’991 patent. Ex. 2009, 192–202. In addition, the Administrative Law Judge in that ID found that Petitioner intentionally copied Patent Owner’s patented technology. Id. at 226–228. That finding was based, in part, upon an adverse inference drawn from the repeated invocation of the Fifth Amendment when former employees of Patent Owner were questioned about allegations that they downloaded confidential documents of Patent Owner shortly before becoming employed by Petitioner. Id. at 241–242 (citing LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 123–24 (2d Cir. 1997)). In addition to Patent Owner’s detailed discussion of how Petitioner’s products embody all limitations of the challenged claims, these specific administrative findings support Patent Owner’s position that there is sufficient nexus between its evidence and the challenged claims. PO Resp. 57–62; Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre et Marie Curie v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013).” slip op. at 27

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We are not persuaded by this argument. Petitioner’s arguments go to the weight that should accorded to the ID, not to its admissibility. See Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Vaughan’s challenge goes to the weight of the evidence rather than the admissibility of Lueptow’s testimony and analysis.”). As Patent Owner responds, the ITC “determined not to review the portions of the ID’s findings regarding the ’991 patent.” Paper 43, 4. And we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that the Final Determination is subject to approval by the President lacks merit because the President did not act on the Final Determination within the period specified by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)(2). Id. at 4–5. The ID recounts evidence that has been considered and evaluated by an objective and disinterested judge, and articulates findings that are relevant to whether there is a sufficient nexus between the challenged claims and Patent Owner’s evidence regarding Petitioner’s products. The ID is also relevant to the issue of copying by Petitioner. Although Petitioner asserts that the ID is prejudicial or confusing, it provides insufficient argument to support those assertions. With respect to Exhibits 2010, 2012–2019, and 2021, Petitioner contends that these exhibits are Hytera advertising and marketing documents, which do not supply sales numbers or third-party praise to prove commercial success. Paper 40, 3–4. Again, this argument relates to the weight to be accorded to that evidence, not to its admissibility. As we note above, we agree with Petitioner that these factors impact the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence, and we have accounted for that impact. Finally, we deny Petitioner’s request that Exhibit 2020 should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402 because Patent Owner’s demonstrative slides in Exhibit 2020 rely on Exhibits 2010, 2012–2019, and 2021. As the Board reminded the parties in its Order granting oral argument, “[d]emonstrative exhibits are not evidence.” Paper 44, 3. Exhibit 2020 is merely a demonstrative and is not evidence.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,279,991 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,279,991
• Delphi Technologies, LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2018 · IPR2017-00864 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–15, and 18–21 unpatentable because their scope did not require the buffer to store the specified information.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “party challenging the decision,” and, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). III. DISCUSSION Patent Owner’s Request does not identify any arguments that we “misapprehended or overlooked” let alone “specifically identify” all such matters. Thus, Patent Owner’s Request fails to comply with our rules. Despite this failure of Patent Owner’s Request, we address the substance of Patent Owner’s argument as follows.” slip op. at 2

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

    “misapprehended any argument. Furthermore, we are unpersuaded that our Decision was in error regarding independent claims 1, 3, 7, 18, and 23 because these claims have a different scope than claims 17, 22, and 24. As Patent Owner correctly noted, our construction of “dedicated USB connection” is “a USB connection that may include some shared physical communication path and includes a buffer for maintaining dedicated address, configuration and response information for the connection.” Dec. 33. Thus, a dedicated USB connection must include a buffer that is capable of storing/maintaining “dedicated address, configuration and response information” regardless of whether such data is actually stored/maintained therein.” slip op. at 3

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 7,523,243
• Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (D/B/A On Semiconductor) v. Power Integrations, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00995 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 26 and 27 unpatentable as anticipated by MC33362.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “review the decision for an “abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments. See id. An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

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

    “arguments. Our claim construction made clear in interpreting “multi-function circuit” that we agree with Patent Owner that the circuit is separate and distinct from the recited “control circuit” in the sense that the claim recites two distinct elements. Dec. 18. However, our interpretation further determined that although we agree “that the multi-function circuit and the control circuit are separate and distinct components in the claims, the claim language does not require that the functions performed by the two distinct circuits must be similarly separate and distinct.” Id. at 22. We further observed that, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, the Specification of the ’908 patent mentions certain functions of the multi-function circuit that are clearly tightly coupled to the “core regulation” function of the recited “control circuit.” Id. at 24–25 (e.g., shutting down the power supply in response to detecting over-voltage or under-voltage conditions). Thus, our Decision is consistent with our interpretation of “multi-function circuit” and expressly disagrees with Patent Owner’s arguments that the functions of the two circuits must also be separate and distinct.” slip op. at 3

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 6,538,908
• Kingston Technology Company, Inc. v. Spex Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2017 · IPR2017-00825 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all asserted grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 55 or 57.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Our Rules require that a petition for inter partes review identify “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified” and must specify “where each element of [a challenged] claim is 3 Petitioner proposes a definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 13; see Ex. 1010 ¶ 20. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition. For purposes of this Decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Moreover, “a challenger who seeks to demonstrate that a means-plus-function limitation was present in the prior art must prove that the corresponding structure—or an equivalent—was present in the prior art.” Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)).” slip op. at 10

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

    “2. “security module” and “target module” The terms “security module” and “target module” both are recited in each challenged claim. Petitioner identifies a dispute between itself and Patent Owner in related district court litigation as to whether those terms require only “functional (not necessarily physically distinct) modules.” Pet. 15. Specifically, Petitioner points to a statement in an infringement claim chart that appears to have been attached as an exhibit to Patent Owner’s complaint in the litigation that the accused device “has at least two modules, a security module (e.g., cryptographic functionality) and a target module (e.g., storage functionality).” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 2). Petitioner states that it “expressly disagrees with Patent Owner’s broad construction of the ‘modules’ language as covering structures that are not physically distinct.” Id. Petitioner contends that the proper construction of “module” “requires a structure that performs as a ‘security’ module and another separate (potentially connected) structure that performs as a ‘target’ (e.g., memory module, second security module, etc.).” Id. at 18.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not sufficiently, persuasively explain how Jones’s disclosure of a memory card that “stores information enabling [a] host computer to automatically identify the particular . . . card as soon as the card and host are connected, and to automatically establish [an] appropriate hardware/software interface” teaches or suggests “receiving a request from the host computing device for information regarding the type of the modular device” and “providing the type of the target module to the host computing device in response to the request,” as recited in claim 55. Indeed, Jones’s statement that the card includes information enabling the host to “automatically” identify the card “as soon as the card and host are connected” suggests not only that receipt of a request is unnecessary, but also that the information is not provided “in response to [a] request.” We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s alternative argument based on a device driver “directly interrogat[ing] the CIS structures in the attribute memory.” Pet. 20. As Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 16), Jones describes that as separate from the embodiment relied upon by Petitioner as disclosing all other limitations of claim 55, whereas anticipation requires that all of the limitations be arranged or combined in the same way in the prior art as recited in the claim. Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Moreover, because Petitioner does not advance any argument that the “CIS structures in the attribute memory” perform the remaining claim steps or explain how the “operably connecting” step of claim 55 would be taught or suggested by Jones “in cases wherein the host computer is not provided with PCMCIA Card Services and Socket Services functions,” we agree with Patent Owner that this alternative argument also fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its obviousness challenge to claim 55 over Jones.” slip op. at 16

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not sufficiently, persuasively explain how Jones’s disclosure of a memory card that “stores information enabling [a] host computer to automatically identify the particular . . . card as soon as the card and host are connected, and to automatically establish [an] appropriate hardware/software interface” teaches or suggests “receiving a request from the host computing device for information regarding the type of the modular device” and “providing the type of the target module to the host computing device in response to the request,” as recited in claim 55. Indeed, Jones’s statement that the card includes information enabling the host to “automatically” identify the card “as soon as the card and host are connected” suggests not only that receipt of a request is unnecessary, but also that the information is not provided “in response to [a] request.” We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s alternative argument based on a device driver “directly interrogat[ing] the CIS structures in the attribute memory.” Pet. 20. As Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 16), Jones describes that as separate from the embodiment relied upon by Petitioner as disclosing all other limitations of claim 55, whereas anticipation requires that all of the limitations be arranged or combined in the same way in the prior art as recited in the claim. Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Moreover, because Petitioner does not advance any argument that the “CIS structures in the attribute memory” perform the remaining claim steps or explain how the “operably connecting” step of claim 55 would be taught or suggested by Jones “in cases wherein the host computer is not provided with PCMCIA Card Services and Socket Services functions,” we agree with Patent Owner that this alternative argument also fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its obviousness challenge to claim 55 over Jones.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,003,135
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com, LLC et al. v. Zitovault, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2017 · IPR2016-01025 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 1, 3, 5–8, and 10 unpatentable because the cited references did not adequately account for the claims’ session limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are persuaded that our preliminary interpretation of “session” in our Decision on Institution is, at least in some respect, overly broad. Independent claims 1, 6, 7, and 10 each refer to “sessions” in plural, and independent claim 7 refers to “simultaneous” sessions. Thus, the term “session” must be understood, at least, in such a manner as to allow multiple sessions to be distinguished from one another. Although independent claim 5 does not recite “sessions” in plural, the same term should be construed consistently across all claims. Accordingly, we conclude that there must be sufficient delineation within a proper construction of “session” that separates a “session” between one client and one server and a different “session” when one of the client and server are replaced, and that separates multiple sessions from each other even between the same pair of client and server. During Oral Hearing there were extensive discussions regarding proper construction of “session.” See Tr. 7:9–22:18, 43:11–65:15, 74:21–76:13. At Oral Hearing, counsel for Petitioner agreed that “session” should be understood as communications having a recognizable beginning and a recognizable end. Id. at 10:13–16 (“Of course a session has a beginning and an end. I think that is axiomatic in a session. I think that is how Dr. Rubin defined it in his declaration”); see also id. at 12:21–13:5, Ex. 1005 ¶ 41. Patent Owner also agreed that if the construction of session is made to include a recognizable beginning and a recognizable end, that would be a proper construction for the term:” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to identify what constitutes a “session” in Feinberg in accordance with a proper construction of “session.” That proper construction of “session” is set forth above and has been agreed to by the parties. Tr. 10:13–16, 53:13–54:10. We state it again here: “a set of transmitters and receivers, and the data streams that flow between them wherein each data stream flowing between the transmitters and receivers has a recognizable beginning of the data stream transmission and a recognizable end of the data stream transmission.” Petitioner identifies Feinberg’s disclosure of forwarding (shunting) received requests from the primary server to secondary servers (for purposes of load balancing) teaches the recited “communication between the main server and agent server enlists additional agent servers to support incremental secure sessions in response to maintaining performance at a desired level.” Pet. 21–23 (emphasis added). The analysis is excessively generic for the claim recitation of “incremental secure sessions.” It is uncertain what Petitioner regards as a session in Feinberg much less how it begins and how it ends. It is unexplained by Petitioner whether a request in Feinberg begins a session, or something else in Feinberg begins a session. We decline to speculate in that regard. It is Petitioner who bears the burden of proof, and who must account for all the limitations in a claim. In that regard, we note further that it is insufficient for Petitioner to present only dots that may be connected in some unspecified manner to yield the claimed invention. Instead, Petitioner must make a sufficient connection through the dots to demonstrate a full accounting of the claimed invention.” slip op. at 22

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

    “that the system supports “incremental secure sessions.” The Petition relies on Feinberg for disclosing such sessions, presenting the same arguments as those it presents for claim 6. See Pet. 33–34. Patent Owner argues Feinberg fails to disclose sessions for the same reasons as those that Patent Owner presented with respect to claim 6. See PO Resp. 36–37. Petitioner’s Reply asserts essentially the same arguments for claim 1 as it does for claim 6 regarding “incremental secure sessions.” Pet. Reply 17. Petitioner does not rely on Bhaskaran to alleviate the above-identified deficiency in the analysis of Feinberg with respect to claim 6. The standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is what would have been taught or suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan with based on the references. The key to supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious and, the Court has noted that, the analysis supporting an obviousness assertion should be made explicit. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). A “legal determinations of obviousness, as with such determinations generally, should be based on evidence rather than on mere speculation or conjecture.” Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As discussed supra, Petitioner failed to account adequately for the recited “sessions.” Therefore, Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claims 1, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Feinberg and Bhaskaran and, for the same reasons, has failed to establish claim 3, dependent from claim 1, would have been obvious over Feinberg and Bhaskaran.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Initially, we note Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude fails to identify the portions of Dr. Rubin’s Declaration that allegedly fail to be based upon sufficient facts or data, that allegedly are the product of unreliable principles and methods, or that allegedly fail to reliably apply sound principles and methods to the facts of the case. There is no requirement for an exact or perfect match between the expert’s experience and the field of the patent. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, Patent Owner fails to meet its burden with respect to this Motion to Exclude. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Furthermore, regarding the objections under FRE 702, we note that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” Consequently, this objection more properly goes to the weight to be given Dr. Rubin’s testimony, and not to its admissibility. In any event, Patent Owner’s argument, that Petitioner did not explain the evidentiary weight or standard that was applied by Dr. Rubin, is misplaced. We note that Dr. Rubin is an expert witness, not a fact finder or a tribunal making fact findings. Dr. Rubin need only provide his opinion and, preferably, also provide the underlying reasoning, inclusive of data and facts, in support of his opinion. For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,484,257 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,484,257
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com, LLC et al. v. Zitovault, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2017 · IPR2016-00021 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 1, 3, 5–8, and 10 unpatentable: the asserted grounds did not adequately identify sessions with recognizable beginnings and ends.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are persuaded that our preliminary interpretation of “session” in our Decision on Institution is, at least in some respect, overly broad. Independent claims 1, 6, 7, and 10 each refer to “sessions” in plural, and independent claim 7 refers to “simultaneous” sessions. Thus, the term “session” must be understood, at least, in such a manner as to allow multiple sessions to be distinguished from one another. Although independent claim 5 does not recite “sessions” in plural, the same term should be construed consistently across all claims. Accordingly, we conclude that there must be sufficient delineation within a proper construction of “session” that separates a “session” between one client and one server and a different “session” when one of the client and server are replaced, and that separates multiple sessions from each other even between the same pair of client and server. During Oral Hearing there were extensive discussions regarding proper construction of “session.” See Tr. 7:9–22:18, 43:11–65:15, 74:21–76:13. At Oral Hearing, counsel for Petitioner agreed that “session” should be understood as communications having a recognizable beginning and a recognizable end. Id. at 10:13–16 (“Of course a session has a beginning and an end. I think that is axiomatic in a session. I think that is how Dr. Rubin defined it in his declaration”); see also id. at 12:21–13:5, Ex. 1005 ¶ 41. Patent Owner also agreed that if the construction of session is made to include a recognizable beginning and a recognizable end, that would be a proper construction for the term:” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to identify what constitutes a “session” in Feinberg in accordance with a proper construction of “session.” That proper construction of “session” is set forth above and has been agreed to by the parties. Tr. 10:13–16, 53:13–54:10. We state it again here: “a set of transmitters and receivers, and the data streams that flow between them wherein each data stream flowing between the transmitters and receivers has a recognizable beginning of the data stream transmission and a recognizable end of the data stream transmission.” Petitioner identifies Feinberg’s disclosure of forwarding (shunting) received requests from the primary server to secondary servers (for purposes of load balancing) teaches the recited “communication between the main server and agent server enlists additional agent servers to support incremental secure sessions in response to maintaining performance at a desired level.” Pet. 21–23 (emphasis added). The analysis is excessively generic for the claim recitation of “incremental secure sessions.” It is uncertain what Petitioner regards as a session in Feinberg much less how it begins and how it ends. It is unexplained by Petitioner whether a request in Feinberg begins a session, or something else in Feinberg begins a session. We decline to speculate in that regard. It is Petitioner who bears the burden of proof, and who must account for all the limitations in a claim. In that regard, we note further that it is insufficient for Petitioner to present only dots that may be connected in some unspecified manner to yield the claimed invention. Instead, Petitioner must make a sufficient connection through the dots to demonstrate a full accounting of the claimed invention. Petitioner had ample notice of the possibility of a narrower interpretation of “session.” See PO Resp. 7–11, 23–24. Indeed, Petitioner responded to that possibility by referring to its own expert’s testimony that the beginning and end of a session may be signified in a variety of forms. Pet. Reply 2. See Genzyme Therapeutic Prod. Ltd. P’ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The critical question for compliance with the APA and due process is whether [the parties] received ‘adequate notice of the issues that would be considered, and ultimately resolved, at [the] hearing’”) (internal citation omitted). Nevertheless, Petitioner’s Reply still does not specifically identify a “session” within Feinberg that accounts for what constitutes a session in Feinberg, including when it begins and ends. Claim 10 recites, in pertinent part, “sharing spare CPU cycles of the computer network for encrypting and decrypting communication to provide N simultaneous secure session[s] among said network of computers.” Petitioner’s analysis with respect to the recitation of “N simultaneous secure session[s]” is deficient for the same reasons we discussed above with respect to the recitation of “incremental secure sessions” in claim 6. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 6 and 10 are anticipated by Feinberg.” slip op. at 22

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

    “that the system supports “incremental secure sessions.” The Petition relies on Feinberg for disclosing such sessions, presenting the same arguments as those it presents for claim 6. See Pet. 33–34. Patent Owner argues Feinberg fails to disclose sessions for the same reasons as those that Patent Owner presented with respect to claim 6. See PO Resp. 36–37. Petitioner’s Reply asserts essentially the same arguments for claim 1 as it does for claim 6 regarding “incremental secure sessions.” Pet. Reply 17. Petitioner does not rely on Bhaskaran to alleviate the above-identified deficiency in the analysis of Feinberg with respect to claim 6. The standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is what would have been taught or suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan with based on the references. The key to supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious and, the Court has noted that, the analysis supporting an obviousness assertion should be made explicit. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). A “legal determinations of obviousness, as with such determinations generally, should be based on evidence rather than on mere speculation or conjecture.” Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As discussed supra, Petitioner failed to account adequately for the recited “sessions.” Therefore, Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claims 1, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Feinberg and Bhaskaran and, for the same reasons, has failed to establish claim 3, dependent from claim 1, would have been obvious over Feinberg and Bhaskaran.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Initially, we note Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude fails to identify the portions of Dr. Rubin’s Declaration that allegedly fail to be based upon sufficient facts or data, that allegedly are the product of unreliable principles and methods, or that allegedly fail to reliably apply sound principles and methods to the facts of the case. There is no requirement for an exact or perfect match between the expert’s experience and the field of the patent. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, Patent Owner fails to meet its burden with respect to this Motion to Exclude. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Furthermore, regarding the objections under FRE 702, we note that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” Consequently, this objection more properly goes to the weight to be given Dr. Rubin’s testimony, and not to its admissibility. In any event, Patent Owner’s argument, that Petitioner did not explain the evidentiary weight or standard that was applied by Dr. Rubin, is misplaced. We note that Dr. Rubin is an expert witness, not a fact finder or a tribunal making fact findings. Dr. Rubin need only provide his opinion and, preferably, also provide the underlying reasoning, inclusive of data and facts, in support of his opinion. For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,484,257 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,484,257
• Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Novadaq Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2017 · IPR2015-01847 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: all are obvious over Yabe; claims 10, 12, and 14 are also anticipated by Krauter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “1. Level of Ordinary Skill Mr. Gunday testified, In my opinion, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the alleged invention is a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or other similar degree, and two ([2]) to three (3) years of work experience relating to medical endoscopic imaging. Such a person would have had an understanding of, or experience in, designing, implementing, and using endoscopic imaging systems, including light sources and endoscopic video and image processing. Ex. 1011 ¶ 76. Mr. Jaggi agrees with Mr. Gunday’s opinion in this regard, adding only that degrees in “Electrical engineering or Engineering Physics” would each qualify as Mr. Gunday’s “other similar degree.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–54. We agree with and adopt the view of the parties regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Initially, we note bodily incorporation of the features of the embodiments is not the test of obviousness; rather, the test lies in what is taught or suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan by the proposed combination of embodiments of Yabe. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. Yabe discloses multiple embodiments and expressly discloses interchangeability of rotary (“surface-sequential-type”) filters as disclosed in Yabe’s second embodiment (Figure 2) and mosaic (“built-in”) filters as disclosed in Yabe’s first and third embodiments (Figures 1a and 10). Ex. 1007, 18:17–21. Yabe’s express disclosures outweigh the unsupported assertions of Patent Owner’s expert regarding the complexity of constructing the proposed combination of embodiments. “Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Therefore, we are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the embodiments of Yabe, as proposed by Petitioner, “because it would serve the same purpose as the existing rotary filter/CCD arrangement and lead to predictable results.” See Pet. 20; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.” slip op. at 28

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

    “We are disinclined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of this phrase, as recited in claim 1, to require mathematical manipulation. Claim 1 recites “calculates” in a self-defining manner, specifically reciting calculating the image signals “by minimizing the contribution from signals produced by the image sensor in response to red illumination light.” Thus, claim 1 is clear on its face that the calculation to be performed is by minimizing the contribution from red light. Therefore, our analysis shifts to determining the meaning of “minimizing” as recited in claim 1. The ’151 patent discloses a variety of embodiments for “minimizing” the contribution of red light.5 For example, in support of the Patent Owner’s 5 Additionally we observe that “minimizing” appears only once in the ’151 patent—in claim 1 (and, thereby, also in its dependent claims 2–9). construction, the ’151 patent does disclose exemplary embodiments that minimize red light contribution utilizing mathematical manipulations including, for example, CMYG filter computations that are “considered to be well known to those of ordinary skill in the art” (Ex. 1001, 4:66–7:59) and averaging blue and green signals to “compute” a cyan signal (id. at 4:21–24). The ’151 patent, however, also specifically recites, Because the passbands of the red mosaic filters do not significantly overlap with the pass bands of the other filters for a short wavelength imaging mode, the contribution of the image signals due to red illumination light can be reduced or largely eliminated by not assigning the image signals produced by image sensor pixels that are sensitive to red light to their corresponding display pixels. Id. at 4:5–12 (emphasis added). The ’151 patent further states “a short wave-length image (or the color components of such an image) can be computed from a subset of image sensor signals (i.e. excluding the signal data from red light).” Id. at 8:29–32 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’151 patent also encompasses the contribution of red light in the image being” slip op. at 12

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

    “Although the ’151 patent does not address “analog” or “digital” in reference to “memory,” we agree with Patent Owner, based primarily on the cross-examination testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Gunday, that the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the ’151 patent filing would have understood “memory,” in the context of the ’151 patent, to be referring to digital memory rather than analog buffers. The signals stored in Krauter’s analog buffers are transitory, analog signals propagating from circuits that calculate a value, through the analog buffer, to an analog input of a display monitor. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have considered such analog buffers to be a memory in the context of the ’151 patent. Thus, we determine “memory,” as recited in claim 1, means any digital memory capable of storing image signals that minimize the contribution of red light.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,420,151 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,420,151
• The Boeing Company v. Seymour LevineAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2016 · IPR2015-01341 · APJ Trenton A Ward · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the combinations listed in the decision.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The definition of “advice” is “information or notice given.” Ex. 3001 (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 32 (1971), 3.). Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of “maintenance advice” is consistent with the aforementioned evidence, in that “maintenance advice” can include maintenance information, but does not require “recommended maintenance actions.” Patent Owner argues that this dictionary definition cited by the Board includes an alternative definition of “advice” as a “recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct.” PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 3001, 3). Patent Owner further argues that this alternative definition of “advice” is most consistent with specification. PO Resp. 33. Patent Owner fails, however, to cite to any portions of the specification to support this argument (see id.) and fails to explain why we should not be guided by the more general statements in the specification, such as the description in the specification that a “preferred maintenance advisory” can be based “on an expert system for fault isolation,” which is in no way “recommended maintenance actions.” Ex. 1001, 3:36–37. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “maintenance advice” must include recommended maintenance actions. Accordingly, we adopt the portion of the proposed definitions on which the parties agree and determine that the term “maintenance advice” means “problem-specific maintenance information.” See also Dec. 7–8.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “skill in the art relevant to the ’618 patent would have a “B.S. degree in electrical, systems, or computer engineering, or an FAA Mechanic Certificate with an airframe rating in accordance with 14 CFR part 65.71 and 65.85.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 15. According to Patent Owner’s Declarant, Mr. Grabowsky, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’618 patent would have “at least a B.S. degree in electrical, systems, or computer engineering, or an FAA Mechanic Certificate with an airframe rating in accordance with 14 CFR part 65.71 and 65.85; as well as either an M.S. or equivalent work experience, such as 3-5 years of experience in avionics.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 8. Thus, both declarants generally agree on the level of skill, although Mr. Grabowsky suggests experience is required in addition to the B.S. degree or the FAA Mechanic Certificate. See id. Based on our review of the ’618 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’618 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant and Patent Owner’s Declarant, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We are not persuaded that the additional experience of an M.S. or equivalent work experience, such as 3-5 years of experience in avionics, is required, as suggested by Mr. Grabowsky, as we are unclear as to why the claimed subject matter is beyond the abilities of someone who otherwise meets applicable federal regulatory standards. Based on the stated qualifications of Dr. Helfrick (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 5–9) and the stated qualifications of Mr. Grabowsky (Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 6–7), Petitioner’s Declarant and Patent Owner’s Declarant both meet the requirements of this definition. We note that the applied prior art also reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12

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

    “and ARINC 624-1 because ARINC 624-1 is a standard directed to the very types of on-board systems discussed in Ward.”)). Additionally, Petitioner contends that ARINC publishes standards for the aviation industry, developed by committees that include aircraft manufacturers, avionics manufacturers, and airlines, and that the ACARS transmitter disclosed in Ward is based on, and, thus, would follow, an ARINC standard. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23, 75). Also, Petitioner contends that both Ward and ARINC 624-1 discuss utilizing (1) onboard maintenance systems including ACMS to collect aircraft performance data and (2) an ACARS transmitter to transmit such data to a ground station. Pet. 30. Petitioner adds that ARINC 624-1 provides an explicit motivation to utilize Ward’s ground based maintenance analysis software in implementing its maintenance system, because ARINC 624-1 states that “if known in advance of an airplane’s arrival at a terminal, selected information held in the OMS central maintenance computer’s memory could be useful to line maintenance personnel in planning timely corrective action.” Pet. 30–31 (quoting Ex. 1014 § 2.2.4). We agree, for the reasons stated by Petitioner, that, given the similarity and overlap in disclosures, and applicability of the ARINC standard to the ACARS transmitter of Ward, a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the system in Ward with the teachings in ARINC 624-1. In view of the foregoing, we determine Petitioner has presented and sufficiently established an “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” with respect to claim 4 for this ground, and we adopt its contentions as our own. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 21

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner

    “on an aircraft having a flight data recorder.” Pet. Reply 15.10 Furthermore, Petitioner identifies that claims 8–10 all require “aircraft position data directed to said flight data recorder.” Id. Petitioner argues that Mr. Levine’s October 9, 1996 Invention Disclosure is insufficient, because it does not reflect the conception of the invention that Patent Owner ultimately claimed, which requires two data recorders—one onboard the aircraft and a second, remote recorder on the ground. Id. We do not agree with Petitioner’s argument that claims 4 and 8–10 require a flight data recorder on the ground, as claim 4 merely recites a “central station” “configured to receive and analyze said digital aircraft performance.” We do agree, however, with Petitioner’s argument that the express language of independent claim 4 requires “an aircraft having a flight data recorder.” Furthermore, claim 4 requires that the “digital aircraft performance data,” which the “central station” is configured to receive and analyze, is “data directed to the flight data recorder.” Thus, the invention recited in independent claim 4, and its dependent claims, must include a flight data recorder onboard the aircraft and, separately, a central station configured to receive and analyze data directed to the onboard flight data recorder. 10 The recitation “[a]n aircraft maintenance system for use on an aircraft having a flight data recorder” appears in the preamble of claim 4. “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, the body of claim 4 refers to “the flight data recorder” as an active limitation in the claim. Therefore, we determine that the preamble is limiting for claim 4.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS RE39,618 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Alstom Grid LLC v. Dominion Resources, Inc. And Virginia Electric And Power CompanyInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00504 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 were unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review of claims 1‒3, 5‒10, 12, 13, and 15‒20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,437,883 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’883 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Dominion Resources, Inc. and Virginia Electric and Power Company (collectively, “Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and associated evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing unpatentability of all the challenged claims. We, therefore, deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Patent Owner argues that Deaver fails to disclose “a signal reporting what was sensed by a sensor that is not included in the subset.” Prelim. Resp. 14‒15. We agree with Patent Owner. As argued by Patent Owner, Petitioner contends that Deaver discloses “alerts” that are transmitted when the minimum and maximum voltage thresholds are exceeded. Prelim. Resp. 14‒15; see Pet. 23. However, the CPVMs transmitting the alerts are monitors at each customer premises that are “selected by an electric utility company as a desired point within the power distribution system [] that will be voltage monitored.” Ex. 1004, 4:1‒3. As such, the CPVMs are all in the subset of sensors being monitored, and none of CPVMs are “not included in the subset.” Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Deaver fails to disclose “at least one other sensor of the plurality of sensors that is not included in the subset is further configured to send a respective reporting signal.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner fails to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner generally states that Deaver, LaPlace, Richeson, and Bell are analogous to the ’883 patent because they are in the same field of endeavor, dealing with power distribution systems and power management in power distribution systems, and metering technology. Pet. 16. Petitioner goes on to characterize each of the references in this field of endeavor. Id. at 16‒17. Although a determination that the cited prior art is analogous to the ’883 patent provides insight into the scope and content of the prior art to be examined, such a determination is, by itself, insufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness. Petitioner must set forth an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning in supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness, and must provide a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements disclosed by each of the references. Here, Petitioner has failed to provide such a reasoning.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We determine that there is no need to construe expressly any of the claim terms at this time. Although Petitioner and Patent Owner disagree as to the construction of the term “energy delivery parameter,” we need not construe this term because it is not necessary to resolve the dispositive issues discussed below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need to be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,437,883

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.