• Google LLC v. Eyesmatch Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00296 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “December 18, 2012, would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with image capture and processing systems or related fields.” Pet. 7 (citing Karam Decl. ¶ 91). Petitioner adds that “[a] person with less and/or different education, but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.” Id. According to Petitioner, [t]he prior art also evidences such level of skill.” Id. Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioners’ proposed level of skill for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Forsyth Decl. ¶¶ 53–54). For this Decision, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.10” slip op. at 9

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Post-institution, Patent Owner invites us to construe limitation 1[f]’s recitation of “mirror tracking mode” and limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.” PO Resp. 9–14. Regarding the latter, Patent Owner explains that “[i]n the District Court Litigation, ‘adaptive transformation mapping’ was construed as ‘continuously variable transformation mapping’ and ‘transformation mapping’ was construed as a ‘selected set of image transformations.’” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2008, 14, 37; Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 25, 27). Patent Owner does not, however, identify any way that those claim constructions affect our analysis of the parties’ patentability disputes. We find it unnecessary in resolving the parties’ patentability disputes to construe expressly limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,110
• Trend Micro Inc. v. Cupp Computing AsSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2023 · IPR2019-00561 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claim 16 was held unpatentable as obvious over APA and Sikdar; claim 7 was not shown unpatentable over Sikdar and Wright.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner contended “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’272 patent (i.e., May 30, 2007) . . . would have had a Bachelors’ degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a comparable field of study, plus at least two years of professional experience with computer security systems and networks, or the equivalent.” Pet. 8 (citing Jakobsson Decl. ¶ 49). In our Final Written Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s description of the person of ordinary skill over an alternative formulation by Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic. FWD 17. However, we decided that we would reach the same result even under Dr. Medvidovic’s alternative formulation. Id. The level of ordinary skill adopted by us has not been further disputed by the parties, nor is it discussed in the Federal Circuit’s Decision. We therefore apply the same formulation for the reasons given in our Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Patent Owner asserts that in Petitioner’s analysis of claim 16, “Petitioner reads out any distinctions between ‘at least a subset’ and ‘a subset.’” PO Resp. 45. Petitioner responds that “[t]he Board should reject Patent Owner’s argument that ‘the subset’ must be a ‘proper subset,’ i.e., a set that is less than the full set of outgoing data.” Pet. Reply 5. Petitioner cites dictionary definitions and other additional authorities to support this conclusion. Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing, e.g., Exs. 1022, 1023, 1024). For example, A Dictionary of Computing defines “subset” as “[a] set T whose members are all members of S,” and contrasts this with a “proper subset.” Ex. 1023, 3. Petitioner further points out that the antecedent basis of “at least a subset” for “the subset” in claim 16 supports its construction. Pet. Reply 6. In our Final Written Decision, after considering Petitioner’s evidence and the language of the claim, we found that the references to “subset” in claim 16 should be construed broadly enough to read on providing any portion of the outgoing data, up to and including all the data, and not a proper subset. FWD 24–25. For the reasons summarized above and those given in our Final Written Decision, we find that the term “subset” in claim 16 does not limit the claim to a “proper subset,” i.e., the claimed subset may include all the members of the set.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Applying the Federal Circuit’s “flexible” standard, we find that for the reasons given that Petitioner demonstrates a motivation to combine Sikdar and the APA, as proposed by Petitioner, with a reasonable expectation of success. We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments and find that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add Sikdar’s NAT/PAT capability to the prior art network system of Figure 18, disclosing a software-based firewall. Pet. 55–58; Pet. Reply 23–25. As Petitioner points out, Sikdar’s RSP “does not include any NICs . . . , which are a separate hardware component.” Pet. Reply 24. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s argument is not convincing. More importantly, however, Patent Owner’s argument fails because in Ground 3, Petitioner does not propose combining “any device containing two NICs with the APA.” Id. Petitioner proposes combining “the RSP’s NAT/PAT functionality with the APA.” Id. at 24–25 (citing Pet. 55–58) (emphasis added). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).” slip op. at 34

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “non-obviousness, including long-felt need, failure of others, and skepticism by experts in the industry. PO Resp. 50–52. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Before reaching a decision on obviousness of claim 16, we must weigh these secondary considerations. In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1075–76 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.” WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). To determine whether the patentee has met that burden, we consider the correspondence between the objective evidence and the claim scope. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). We concluded, in our Final Written Decision, that Patent Owner had failed to meet its burden. FWD 47–50. We agreed with Petitioner that Patent Owner had failed to establish the required nexus to its claims. Id. at 49. We agreed also that Patent Owner had not provided convincing evidence supporting the existence of such objective indicia. Id. We find that, for the reasons given in our Final Written Decision, which we adopt for this Final Written Decision on Remand, Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary factors is insubstantial and unconvincing, and we therefore give it minimal weight in considering the obviousness of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,365,272 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,365,272
• Allstate Insurance Company v. Atos, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2023 · IPR2021-01449 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 5 is unpatentable as anticipated by Kim; claims 1–4 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’174 patent and the prior art of record. We note, however, that neither party contends that any issue in this case turns on the differences between the parties’ definitions of one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed construction of “rotation vector” is consistent with the ’174 patent’s usage of the term “rotation vector” (or “vector of rotation”). See Ex. 1001, 1:54–2:11. Dr. Kanellakopoulos’s opinion supports that “rotation vector” would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to describe the motion of a body that is rotating around a point. As to the other aspects of Patent Owner’s proposed construction, describing the characteristics of magnitude and direction, we determine that those attributes are not necessary to interpreting how a skilled artisan would understand “rotation vector” in light of the claim language and specification. See Tr. 47:26–48:7 (in Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “rotation vector,” “the magnitude requirement is not particularly important”). We address the parties’ arguments as to differences between a rotation vector and angular momentum vector in Section II.D.2 below, because they underlie Petitioner’s challenges involving Kleppner.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Having considered the parties’ positions as to construction of the term “movement vector” and applicability of the definition of “movement vector” set forth in the ’174 patent specification (Ex. 1001, 2:29–31), we construe the term “movement vector” to mean “a vector derived from the cross product of the centrifugal force vector and the rotation vector.” We adopt the definition set forth in the ’174 specification because we determine patentee acted as its own lexicographer. Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316) (“When the patentee acts as its own lexicographer, that definition governs.”). We agree with Petitioner that the words “while a vehicle is turning” would be superfluous in the construction, because the step of “detecting a movement vector during the turn” already recites that the vehicle is turning. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, 842 F.3d 1229, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Construing a claim term to include features of that term already recited in the claims would make those expressly recited features redundant.”)” slip op. at 16

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

    “We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction because it improperly reads into claim 5 a requirement that the specification and claim language do not support. The specification passages relied on by Patent Owner do not expressly state that a vehicle independent state must be determined while the device is inside a vehicle, and contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, they also do not necessarily imply that. For example, the descriptions of “vehicle independent movement” and “vehicle independent event” in the specification (see Ex. 1001, 1:16, 42) refer to “phone falling to the ground.” “Falling to the ground” implies that the phone may be outside a vehicle, not inside. Further, the specification’s reference to detecting a vehicle dependent state “while also” recognizing a vehicle independent event does not necessarily imply that the vehicle dependent state and vehicle independent event are being detected simultaneously, as Patent Owner argues. In the language of claim 5, a “vehicle independent state” is recited in the determining step (step c), and the requirement that the portable device is located “inside a vehicle” relates to creation of an operation indicator, as part of the detecting step (step b). Patent Owner does not dispute this, and agrees that a portable device “not in the vehicle” can satisfy the determining step (step c). Tr. 73:5–8. Patent Owner, however, argues step c’s recitation that a “vehicle independent state” is based on step b’s “predetermined criteria” creates a link between “vehicle independent state” and step b, and thus an “express requirement” in step c that the device is located inside the vehicle. See Tr. 73:8–26, 76:1–3. We decline to read this requirement into the claim language. Although the claim language states that determining a “vehicle independent state” is based on “predetermined criteria,” and step b describes comparing “predetermined criteria” to an “operation indicator” that is created when the device is inside a vehicle, it does not limit the step of determining a vehicle independent state to a time when the portable device is inside a vehicle. Accordingly, we construe “vehicle independent state” to mean a state triggered when the portable device is moved independently of the movement of the vehicle.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 9,846,174 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,846,174
• Forescout Technologies, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2023 · IPR2021-01329 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Mahaffey; the other challenged claims were not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of our decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal on the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We find that the specification, therefore, supports Patent Owner’s argument that the term “web content filtering” differs from “web filtering”” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring IPR petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)) (emphasis added). This burden does not shift to Patent Owner, except in limited circumstances not present here. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in an IPR). By not providing a claim construction for a key term, “web content filtering,” Petitioner failed to live up to its obligation to provide an understandable explanation of the element-by-element specifics of the unpatentability challenges, including the particular portions of prior art supporting those challenges. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(3)– (4); Harmonic Inc., 815 F.3d at 1363–64; Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intel. Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also MModal LLC v. Nuance Communicatons, Inc., 846 Fed. Appx. 900, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (non-precedential).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded by these belated arguments, as they are based entirely on testimony by Dr. Cole as to what a person of ordinary skill “would understand” that is unsupported by any citations to Syvanne or other evidence of record. Such unsupported opinions are not entitled to any weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35 (November 2019)8 (“The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony. . . . However, the testimony must be based on sufficient facts and data.”); Fed. R. Evid. 702(b). “[E]xpert testimony cannot take the place of disclosure from patents or printed publications. In other words, 8 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. substitute for disclosure in a prior art reference itself.” Consolidated Practice Guide at 36.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,894,034 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,894,034
• Nanofiber Solutions, LLC v. Acera Surgical, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2022 · IPR2021-01016 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 13 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 as anticipated by Johnson, and claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Johnson and Johnson–Liu, respectively.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of filing the ‘228 Patent would have been a person having a bachelor's degree in science or engineering, for example in the fields of chemistry, chemical engineering, or biomedical engineering, with undergraduate research experience, coupled with at least three years of industry experience, that linked the fabrication of fibrous polymeric materials to performance requirements for scaffolds for the promotion of proliferation of biological cells and the growth and/or reconstruction of biological tissues. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–116). In response, Patent Owner notes that all challenged claims recite electrospun fibers but that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill “requires (1) no coursework, training or experience with electrospinning and (2) improperly focuses on scaffolds for the promotion of proliferation of biological cells and the growth and/or reconstruction of biological tissues.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 38–39). But Patent Owner then concedes that this “difference is immaterial to deciding the issues raised by the Petition.” Id. at 8.” slip op. at 9

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

    “construe claims “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Furthermore, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 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))). The parties agree that the terms of the challenged claims should be given their “plain and ordinary meaning” and that no express claim construction is necessary to address Petitioner’s challenges. Pet. 12; PO Resp. 6. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of resolving the dispute between the parties.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Upon review, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has improperly mixed and matched disclosures from Johnson to arrive at an anticipatory reference. Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner primarily relies on Example 1 as evidence for the method by which its scaffold is made. But the disclosure found in paragraph 98 is not a “distinct” teaching of the type described in Net MoneyIN; rather, it is a general description of the structures that may be created by Johnson’s method: “A scaffold may comprise any number of layers, including about 1 layer, about 2 layers, about 3 layers, about 4 layers, about 5 layers, and so on.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 98. Patent Owner has not directed us to anything in the disclosure of Johnson that indicates that this is a “distinct” teaching or embodiment, instead of a general description of the types of scaffolds that Johnson encompasses. We see no reason why the general disclosures regarding Johnson’s scaffolds should be limited to specific embodiments, or precluded from applying to the method of Example 1.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are unconvinced by Petitioner’s arguments and evidence. While we recognize that the range of claim 3 is very broad, and it is possible that scaffolds having fiber diameters as set forth in Johnson could have a mean pore size falling within the range, inherency “may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.” Par Pharm., Inc. v. Twi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor does Petitioner sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the process of Example 1 to necessarily result in the claimed mean pore size. We are also persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Boland 2005’s disclosure of a fiber diameter similar to Johnson’s that nevertheless falls outside the claimed mean pore size range. We note that Petitioner never addresses Boland 2005 in its Reply. 4. Conclusion as to Anticipation For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 13 are anticipated by Johnson, but has failed to meet its burden as to claim 3.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,632,228 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,632,228
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Justservice.Net LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 16, 2022 · IPR2020-01258 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8, 10, 13–16, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11, 12, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner

    “We declined to decide whether Dropbox should have been named an RPI in the Petition in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 2–4. Patent Owner did not raise the RPI issue in its post-institution Response. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has thus forfeited any RPI arguments. Reply at 24 (citing Unified Patents, LLC v. Mobility Workx, LLC, IPR2018- 00150, Paper 26 at 3 (PTAB Dec. 2, 2019) (RPI arguments waived if not in Response)). Therefore, we need not address this issue further.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s definition as being consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected by the prior art. Dec. 10–11; see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State 6 Patent Owner also submitted a supplemental declaration by Dr. Brogioli (Ex. 2031) with its Sur-Reply. We expunged that document from the record along with certain other exhibits (Exs. 2023–2030) as untimely presented under 37 C.F.R § 42.23(b). Paper 37. Therefore, we do not take those documents into consideration for our analysis in this Decision. Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). We continue to apply that same definition for our analysis in this Final Written Decision. We note, however, that there does not appear to be a significant difference between the parties’ respective definitions, so our analysis would not substantially differ under Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Additionally, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Walker is not enabled, or that a POSITA would not have a reasonable expectation of success in combining Prust with Walker, because those arguments focus on features not required by the challenged claims of the ’868 patent. See Raytheon Tech. Corp. v. General Electric Co., 993 F.3d 1374) (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“In general, a prior art reference asserted under § 103 does not necessarily have to enable its own disclosure, i.e., be ‘self-enabling,’ to be relevant to the obviousness inquiry.”). Dr. Brogioli acknowledged that he never even analyzed whether the features of Walker that he argues are not enabling are required in the claims of the ’868 patent. Ex. 1032, 84:1-85:22 (testifying that he did not recall performing an analysis about whether the claims of the ’868 patent required allowing users to edit different parts of the same file at the same time, user collaboration, concurrency among user actions and editing, or locking a document). Moreover, other than pointing to the allegedly deficient teachings of Walker itself, Dr. Brogioli cites to no evidence of record in support of his testimony that a POSITA would not have a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Walker. See Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 66–74. But Walker itself is presumed to be enabling for what it teaches. See In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[A] prior art printed publication . . . is presumptively enabling barring any showing to the contrary by [the] patentee.”). Rather than the unsupported testimony of Dr. Brogioli, we credit the testimony of Dr. Long, which is corroborated by other prior art, that the concepts disclosed in Walker, such as indicating that downloaded files are currently locked and unavailable to other users and multi-user editing, would have been familiar to programming students before 2005, and a POSITA would have been able to apply these well-known techniques with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 36–40, 67 (citing Ex. 1011–1017); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 4–5.” slip op. at 39

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

    “we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s claim construction position that the claims require the virtual server to transmit information about files locally stored on the client device (in addition to virtual server files) as part of the fourth claim element. With regard to the claim language, we agree with Patent Owner that “the one or more files associated with the particular user storage account” recited in the fifth claim element finds antecedent basis in the prior recitation of “information relating to one or more files associated with the particular user storage account” in the fourth claim element. By its plain language, what this means is that at least some of the “information” that is transmitted from the virtual server under the fourth element must be related to the “userselected file” that is subsequently uploaded from the client device under the fifth element. Cf. Yamaha Corp. v. ESS Tech., Inc., 82 F.3d 435, 1996 WL 146499, *3 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“By using a definite article ‘the’ to describe ‘output’ in the last phrase, Yamaha raises the inference that the term refers to the same value as in the first step.”). Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, we are not of the view that files referenced in the fourth and fifth elements are completely “distinct.” But this does not necessarily imply, as Patent Owner suggests, that the virtual server must already be in possession of information relating to locally stored files at the point of the transmitting step of the fourth element and prior to the uploading step of the fifth element. Indeed, there is nothing recited in the claims to suggest how the virtual server would come to know about files stored on the client device.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,476,868 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,476,868
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Uusi, LLC D/B/A NartronSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 17, 2020 · IPR2016-00908 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Remand

  Claims 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 61–67, 69, 83–86, 88, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97, 99, 101, and 102 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 37–39 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which vacated our Decision and remanded the matter to us. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. UUSI, LLC, 775 F. App’x 692 (Fed. Cir. 2019). As to the earlier instituted claims, the Court instructed that we should consider “whether Samsung has shown that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teaching of Gerpheide with the teachings of Ingraham [I]/Caldwell to arrive at the claimed invention.” Id. at 697. The Court further instructed us to “consider the patentability of claims 37, 38, and 39” (id.) because, on April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s instruction in this case and in light of SAS Inst., Inc., we modified our Decision on Institution to institute review of claims 37–39 of the ’183 patent as obvious over Ingraham I, Caldwell, and Gerpheide. Paper 40. We further held a teleconference on August 15, 2019, with respective counsel for the parties, to hear their proposals on how to proceed with this trial. Paper 41, 2. Having considered the parties’ proposals, we authorized the parties to submit concurrent briefs and subsequent responses addressing the following issues (id. at 6):” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a minimum of: (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent thereof; and (2) “two to three years of experience in the relevant field, which includes touch systems technology.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 19). Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Cairns, opines that a person of ordinary skill “in the art of capacitive touch sensors would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in physics or electrical engineering or equivalent industry experience in the field.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 14. In our Final Written Decision, we noted that the levels of ordinary skill proposed by the parties do not differ significantly, but adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition as more representative, indicating that our analysis would be the same under either definition. Paper 35, 9–10. On remand, neither party disputes the definition adopted in the Final Written Decision. Furthermore, no argument presented by the parties on remand would be affected by adopting one of the proposed definitions over the other. We maintain here the definition adopted in the Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 14

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

    “transition term[s]” should be considered in determining the meaning of a claim term, but asserts without further support that the presence of a semicolon after “supply voltage” and the use of the transition term “wherein” do not compel the preliminary construction. Id. As we addressed in denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, claim 37 employs the open-ended transition term “comprising” followed by a colon to indicate that a list elements follows, and employs semicolons to separate the elements of that list. Paper 17, 5. The first element of the list, element 37a, describes an oscillator and includes the supply voltage limitation preceded by a comma and the transition term “wherein.” Id. Element 37a then ends with a semicolon and the claim proceeds to element 37b, which recites a microcontroller. Id. Petitioner thus nominally acknowledges consideration of punctuation, but advances a construction that asks us to disregard punctuation affirmatively recited in the claim. To do so would be “inconsistent with the punctuation [patentee] chose for this claim.” In re Pelz, 379 F. App’x 975, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Likewise, as to Petitioner’s assertion that we read an additional limitation into the claim (Pet. Br. 10), we observe that, if the claim is limited to a particular exemplary embodiment, such a limitation results from the claim being drafted to cover only that embodiment. While we confirmed in the Decision on Institution that the use of the term supply voltage is consistent with its use in the Specification (Dec. on Inst. 9), the limitation of the claim to the oscillator is based on the language of the claim, not on definition or disavowal. Therefore, even accepting, for the sake of argument, that there is no disavowal or definition in the Specification of “supply voltage,” the term refers in independent claim 37 to supply voltage of the oscillator.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments because they are not responsive to the combination of teachings at issue in the references before us. Patent Owner focuses on particular features of Gerpheide that it alleges either “would not work . . . in the proposed Caldwell-Ingraham system” or “can only work” in the presence of a component Patent Owner argues that “neither Ingraham nor Caldwell uses.” PO Br. 1–2, 12–13. These arguments are based on a mistaken premise that one or more components or physical configurations of Gerpheide must be incorporated into the combination of Ingraham I and Caldwell in order to show a reasonable likelihood of success. Under the Federal Circuit’s construction of the “selectively providing” limitation, the combination of Ingraham I, Caldwell, and Gerpheide need not incorporate the specific features of Gerpheide identified by Patent Owner. Petitioner asserts, supported by evidence from Dr. Subramanian, that the Ingraham I-Caldwell combination would have been modified based on Gerpheide “to provide features that adjust[] the oscillator signal frequency provided to the input portions 13 to negate the effect of interference on the input portions 13 and touch sensing circuits.” Pet. 26–27. This modification would not require any of the particular components or configurations of Gerpheide highlighted by Patent Owner. Thus, even if one or more of Patent Owner’s arguments as to the infeasibility of incorporating particular aspects of Gerpheide were correct, Patent Owner’s arguments do not address Gerpheide’s particular teaching of adjusting oscillator signal frequency to negate the effect of interference, and therefore, Patent Owner’s arguments are not responsive to the proposed combination and evidence relied upon by Petitioner. In view of the above, we find that Petitioner has shown that the skilled artisan would have combined Gerpheide with Ingraham/Caldwell as proposed with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 5,796,183 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 5,796,183
• Reg Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste OyjSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2020 · IPR2018-01374 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6, 7, 10, 20, and 24 are unpatentable; claims 1–5, 8, 9, 11–19, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable, because the cited art did not teach the claimed iron-content limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Neste argues that REG’s proposed level of skill in the art is “unreasonably high” and instead proffers that “a person of ordinary skill in the field of biofuel engineering and processing as of Feb. 15, 2011 would have had a degree in chemical engineering or chemistry and at least two to three years of experience with processes for manufacturing hydrocarbons from bio renewable feedstocks.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶ 31). Neither party indicates that the outcome of any arguments made in this case would change depending on the level of ordinary skill in the art. We agree with the parties that the ordinarily skilled artisan, in February 2011, would have had at least a degree in chemical engineering or chemistry and would have had several years of experience in processing and refining biofuels. We need not parse the particular amount of education or experience given that neither party asserts this determination would have had any effect on the arguments or analysis in this case. Further, we find that the prior art of record reflects the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. 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 POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “We have again reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, and again decline to import into the claim a requirement that the bio oil must be pre-treated. As we discussed in our institution decision, nothing in the ’185 patent indicates that the definition of bio oil is so limited. And we note that certain dependent claims of the ’185 patent, for example claim 21, specifically recite a pre-treatment step, leading to the conclusion that the bio oils of the independent claims are not limited to only pretreated bio oils. Neste’s new evidence introduced during trial is extrinsic to the patent, based on the testimony of Dr. Klein regarding the criticality of the iron content range. See PO Resp. 3 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 35–36, 38). In any event, we fail to see how the criticality of the claimed range mandates that the bio oil be pretreated prior to undergoing the claimed process. While Dr. Klein testifies that it is “clear from the ‘185 patent [that] a bio oil feed must be pretreated to render it suitable for commercial hydrotreatment” (Ex. 2029 ¶ 35), the portion of the patent he cites for this proposition states only that “bio-based feedstock (glyceride oil) to be used as feed material for hydrotreatment reaction can be purified to iron content of less than 1 to 0.2 w-ppm.” Ex. 1001, 4:50–55 (emphasis added). But this statement does not address the use of a bio oil that already contains an iron content within the claimed range, which therefore would not need purification. Indeed, the ’185 patent discusses “experiments with palm oil having very low level of impurities.” Ex. 1001, 4:45–46. Based on the foregoing, we maintain our view that the claim term requires no construction beyond its express language. The bio oil to be used in the method of claim 1 may be pretreated to achieve the claimed iron content, but pretreatment is not required by the claim.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “The intrinsic record of the ’185 patent contains no indication that bio oil intermediate was a new term coined to signify a specific class of bio oils, as Neste contends. The written description contains a section devoted to providing specific definitions for terminology, including “bio oil,” “glyceride oil,” and “hydrotreatment.” Ex. 1001, 3:28–4:7. There is no mention of a bio oil intermediate, which would be expected if the inventors had intended to coin a new term. The only use of “intermediate” in the entire written description is as follows: “disclosed is a glyceride oil intermediate, which intermediate consists of glyceride oil from at least one renewable source and the iron content of said glyceride oil is less than 1 w-ppm.” Id. at 4:64–67. The sentence preceding that one states only that the “purification result can be obtained (depending on used feedstock) using pretreatment methods.” Id. at 4:61–62 (emphasis added). As can be seen, there is no mention in this passage that the “glyceride oil intermediate” must be pretreated, and no indication it is a novel term coined by the inventors. In any event, Neste has not given us reason to depart from the general presumption that a claim preamble is not limiting. The body of claim 6 recites a structurally complete invention, defining the bio oil intermediate according to its iron content. There is no reason to rely on the preamble of the claim for any structure, or for antecedent basis for any claim term. Therefore, we conclude that the preamble does not “breathe life and meaning” into the claim, but rather recites an intended use for the structurally complete invention recited in the body of the claim. As such, we decline to adopt Neste’s modified construction of the claim term, and maintain our prior construction of claim 6’s preamble.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Upon evaluation of the record as a whole, we believe Neste has the better argument, and conclude that the iron content of the bio oil in claim 1 should be determined when the feed is introduced to the catalyst bed. This interpretation is, most importantly, reflected in the structure of the claim. Claim 1 contains a single process step, of “subjecting a bio oil . . . to a hydrotreatment process.” Immediately following this process step is a wherein clause that requires the iron content of “said bio oil” to be within a certain range. The necessary implication of this claim structure is that “said bio oil” is referring to the substance that is being subjected to the hydrotreatment process, meaning the iron content that is relevant to the claim is the iron content at the time of hydrotreatment with a catalyst. The claim, as a comprising claim, does not exclude the presence of other treatment steps such as purification or dilution, but the structure of the claim does imply that these additional steps should be performed prior to determining whether the iron content of the feed is within the claimed range.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,742,185 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,742,185
• Hoya Optical Labs Of America, Inc. v. Inland Diamond Products Co.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-00178 · APJ Michael G Mcmanus · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 12 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 4–6, and 9–11 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The claims at issue are apparatus claims rather than process claims. Accordingly, no specific means of achieving the interference fit is required. We construe “interference fit” as a structural limitation specifying the relationship of the bevel and frame. Even if construed as a product-by-process limitation (with the process being the insertion of a lens within a frame of lesser size), “determination of patentability is based on the product itself.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Patent Owner frames its proposed construction in terms of the process by which the fit comes about, but says little about the structural characteristics of the interference fit upon assembly. The Specification teaches that pressure upon the lens would lead to compression of the vertex. Ex. 1001, 4:40–55. That the vertex is in a compressed state is separately required in all claims by the “in compression” limitation. Id. at 8:54, 9:24. In view of the foregoing and in light of the parties’ arguments following institution, we modify our preliminary construction to recognize that an interference fit in this context implicates associated compressive forces. We, therefore, construe “interference fit” to mean “a relationship of the bevel of the lens and the receiving channel bottom of the eyeglass frame where such parts are in contact so as to exert frictional and compressive forces that secure the lens in place.”” slip op. at 17

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

    “Petitioner sets forth a rationale to combine the teachings of Gottschald and Schaeffer. Id. at 20. Petitioner argues that the teachings of Gottschald are applicable to the prescription lenses of Schaeffer as follows: POSITA would have been motivated by these teachings to use the method and device of Gottschald, with no change in its function, to edge the prescription plastic lens blank described by Schaeffer “so that the spectacle lens edge machining directly delivers a spectacle lens which is suitable for the selected spectacle frame, which has been ground to shape and which is provided with a bevel” (Gottschald, p. 6), and thereby to obtain the expected result of a “prescription plastic lens for use in an eyeglass frame” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 20. Patent Owner does not challenge the adequacy of Petitioner’s rationale with specificity. See PO Resp. 48–54. Rather, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner relies on “mere conclusory statements” throughout the Petition. Id. at 49. Such a generalized argument has little force. Having reviewed the evidence as a whole, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Gottschald (regarding lens edging) and Schaeffer (regarding prescription lenses) in the manner Petitioner proposes.” slip op. at 28

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

  Patent outcomesUS 8,636,360 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,636,360
• Fitbit, Inc. / Wahoo Fitness LLC. v. Blackbird Tech, LLC D/B/A Blackbird Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 12, 2019 · IPR2018-00275 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2 and 5 were not shown unpatentable over Amano; claim 6 was shown unpatentable as obvious over Kato and Amano.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Under district court-type claim construction, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of 8 record (Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see also In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“While claims are generally given their broadest possible scope during prosecution, the Board’s review of the claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review.”) (internal citation omitted)). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence” (DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17)). There is a “heavy presumption,” however, “that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning” (CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). We determine that no claim terms require express construction (see Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy)).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been [1] a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in motion tracking, motion analysis, inertial sensing, or signal analysis, or [2] a person with a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in motion tracking, motion analysis, inertial sensing, or signal analysis or “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience. . . .” (Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 45–47)). Patent Owner does not dispute the educational level or experiential aspects of Petitioner’s definition in its Response (see generally PO Resp.). We note that the assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding (see Okajima at 1355). Based on our review of 12 the ’212 Patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’212 Patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Choudhury and Dr. Michael Caloyannides, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s description of a skilled artisan as possessing (1) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in motion tracking, motion analysis, inertial sensing, or signal analysis, or (2) a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in motion tracking, motion analysis, inertial sensing, or signal analysis, is supported by the current record.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner does not identify any disclosure in Amano that describes calculating pitch based on any distance. That pitch has a length/time measurement does not change the lack of disclosure of Amano of any counting of steps in determining the distance traveled. Indeed, Amano’s FFT processing merely determines when a step has occurred through identification of peak frequency of the second order harmonic wave component, to determine pitch; however, the FFT processing does not count steps to be used in further calculation.” slip op. at 20

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Amano does not disclose calculation of distance travelled, as recited in claims 2 and 5, as set forth above. Further, Petitioner has not persuaded us an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the FFT processing which identifies a peak frequency of a second harmonic to measure the pitch, to calculate a distance travelled as recited in claims 2 and 5 instead. Petitioner provides no additional discussion of this limitation in its Petition, instead relying on its anticipation arguments (Pet. 50–51). Thus, Petitioner has not articulated any reason why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Amano to teach calculating a distance travelled.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,434,212 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,434,212

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.