- Marker Volkl USA, Inc. v. Kneebinding, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 15, 2018 · IPR2017-01265 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 4–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by DE ’298 and obvious over Boussemart and DE ’298.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Id. at 14.3 Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s assertions, arguing that the ’867 patent’s claim language and Specification establish that the two elements “are inextricably linked.” Pet. Reply 1–9. Although we are not in complete agreement with either parties’ construction, we, nevertheless, agree generally with Petitioner, for the reasons set forth below, that the “lateral release assembly” and “upper heel housing” recited by claim 1 should not be construed as being separate functional parts of the upper heel assembly that separate and isolate lateral and vertical release forces, respectively. We begin our analysis with the express claim language. Specifically, claim 1 recites in part “a lower heel assembly attached to the ski” and “an upper heel assembly coupled to the lower heel assembly and having a lateral release assembly for applying lateral securing pressure to the ski boot, the upper heel assembly comprising an upper heel housing that is configured to compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward.” Ex. 1001, 11:36– 12:2. Thus, from the claim itself, we know that (1) the “upper heel assembly” is coupled to the “lower heel assembly” and, thus, attached to the ski; (2) this associated upper/lower heel assembly has a “lateral release assembly”; (3) the lateral release assembly is for “applying lateral securing pressure to the ski boot”; and (4) the upper heel assembly “is configured to compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward.” However, none of this claim language requires that the “lateral release assembly” and “upper heel housing” must be treated as separate functional parts of the upper heel assembly that separate and isolate lateral and vertical release forces,” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Regarding the level of skill in the art, Petitioner asserts: a POSA in the February 18, 2003 timeframe would be an individual with a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or related technology and three to five years of experience in either the design, fabrication, or manufacture of ski bindings and related equipment, research concerning ski bindings and related equipment, or the development of standards concerning ski bindings or related equipment, in addition to ten years or more of personal experience using ski bindings. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 32). In response, “Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSITA’) for purposes of the ’867 patent.” PO Resp. 3 (citing Pet. 14–15). Having considered the evidence, we find that Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill is correct. We also note that the cited references often reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention, and that the references cited here appear to reflect the level agreed to by the parties. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [can] reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art”).” slip op. at 11
- BurdenUnpatentable
“Patent Owner responds that DE ’298 does not disclose an “upper heel assembly” that compresses the heel portion of the ski boot downward. PO Resp. 25–30. Patent Owner argues that “the disclosure of DE ’298 makes clear that the hold-down member 13 and heel holder 25 only resist upward motion by the ski boot heel – they do not ‘compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward’ by providing downward force on the heel.” PO Resp. 26. To support its position, Patent Owner provides an annotated copy of the annotated copy of Figure 2, provided by Petitioner and designated “Fig. Q” in the Petition. See Pet. 41. More particularly, Patent Owner annotated Petitioner’s “Fig. Q,” to show “a gap (circled in purple) between the top edge of the ski boot sole (which Petitioner added; the original figure in DE ’298 does not show the boot) and the bottom edge of arms 26 of heel holder 25.” PO Resp. 27–30 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 62). Figure 2, annotated, depicts the DE ’298 releasing/retaining device of a releasing ski binding. And, because there is a “gap” between the ski boot, superimposed by Petitioner in Fig. Q (see, e.g., Pet. 41), and arms 26 of heel holder 25, Patent Owner argues that DE ’298 “cannot provide downward force as the arms 26 do not touch the ski boot heel.” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 63).4 Therefore, although Patent Owner acknowledges that DE ’298 discloses that its hold-down member “hold[s] the shoe down ‘against upwardly pivoting’” (PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004, 4), Patent Owner argues that merely “[o]pposing upward motion does not compress the ski boot downward as required by the challenged claims.” 5 PO Resp. 28. 4 The cited portions of Dr. Dodge’s Declaration largely mirror the language set forth in the corresponding portion of the Patent Owner Response. 5 Patent Owner submits that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘compress’ means ‘to squeeze or press together’, or ‘to make smaller as if by squeezing.’” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2003). Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s reading of DE ’298 is strained, that other portions of the reference make clear that DE ’298 discloses an “upper heel assembly” that does in fact compress the heel downward, and that any purported “gap” in the drawing is a red herring that does not comport with basic physics. Pet. Reply 15–18.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner responds that DE ’298 does not disclose an “upper heel assembly” that compresses the heel portion of the ski boot downward. PO Resp. 25–30. Patent Owner argues that “the disclosure of DE ’298 makes clear that the hold-down member 13 and heel holder 25 only resist upward motion by the ski boot heel – they do not ‘compress the heel portion of the ski boot downward’ by providing downward force on the heel.” PO Resp. 26. To support its position, Patent Owner provides an annotated copy of the annotated copy of Figure 2, provided by Petitioner and designated “Fig. Q” in the Petition. See Pet. 41. More particularly, Patent Owner annotated Petitioner’s “Fig. Q,” to show “a gap (circled in purple) between the top edge of the ski boot sole (which Petitioner added; the original figure in DE ’298 does not show the boot) and the bottom edge of arms 26 of heel holder 25.” PO Resp. 27–30 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 62). Figure 2, annotated, depicts the DE ’298 releasing/retaining device of a releasing ski binding. And, because there is a “gap” between the ski boot, superimposed by Petitioner in Fig. Q (see, e.g., Pet. 41), and arms 26 of heel holder 25, Patent Owner argues that DE ’298 “cannot provide downward force as the arms 26 do not touch the ski boot heel.” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 63).4 Therefore, although Patent Owner acknowledges that DE ’298 discloses that its hold-down member “hold[s] the shoe down ‘against upwardly pivoting’” (PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004, 4), Patent Owner argues that merely “[o]pposing upward motion does not compress the ski boot downward as required by the challenged claims.” 5 PO Resp. 28. 4 The cited portions of Dr. Dodge’s Declaration largely mirror the language set forth in the corresponding portion of the Patent Owner Response. 5 Patent Owner submits that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘compress’ means ‘to squeeze or press together’, or ‘to make smaller as if by squeezing.’” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2003). Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s reading of DE ’298 is strained, that other portions of the reference make clear that DE ’298 discloses an “upper heel assembly” that does in fact compress the heel downward, and that any purported “gap” in the drawing is a red herring that does not comport with basic physics. Pet. Reply 15–18.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,955,867 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,955,867 - DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · CBM2017-00032 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–7, 16–19, 23–24, 26–28, 32–36, and 41 are unpatentable under § 101; the petitioner did not show claims 17, 18, 23, 24, and 28 unpatentable under § 112.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenOther
“Considering each claim limitation, as well as each explicit citation to the specification expressly set forth in the Petition, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, via analysis and evidence explicitly set forth on pages 6–7 of the Petition, that independent claim 1, as a whole, does not recite a technological feature that is novel or unobvious.” slip op. at 22
- Adverse judgmentOther
“Response (Paper 24, “PO Resp.”) and disclaimed claims 5, 25, 39, and 43 (Ex. 2006). Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 38, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 40, “PO Sur”), and Petitioner filed a Response to the Sur-Reply (Paper 41, “Pet. Sur”).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction Petitioner and Patent Owner dispute the construction of certain claim terms. Pet. 23–28; PO Resp. 34–46. We apply the constructions of those terms set forth in Paper 49 in this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We agree. The preambles of independent claims 1, 19, and 33 expressly state as much. In particular, the preamble of claims 1 and 33 provide: “A system for providing targeted advertising to a multimedia content end user” (claim 1) or “a plurality of multimedia content end users” (claim 33). Ex. 1003, 46:13–14, 49:59–60. Likewise, claim 19’s preamble refers to “[a] device for providing targeted advertising to an end user.” Id. at 48:20–21. Taking claim 1 as a representative example, the remainder of the claim recites certain tangible components, namely a “storage device” and specifically, an “addressable and reserved storage space”; a “processor”; and “software implemented by” the processor. Id. at 46:13–28. The claim further requires the following functionalities: the processor “reserv[ing]” the storage space; the processor “select[ing] particular advertising data suitable for targeting to at least one end user based upon predefined criteria data”; the storage space “storing digital advertising data” and specifically, the “particular advertising data”; and the “particular advertising data” being “accessible to” the user. Id. Thus, we are persuaded that claim 1, taken as a whole, is focused on the concept of providing targeted advertising to a user. Further, the claims merely invoke computers as a tool to implement the concept of targeted advertising, and are not directed to any improvement in computer functionality. See Pet. 34; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 944–945. The claims recite generic components and functionality. For example, in claim 1, the required components, outlined above—a storage device and specifically, a storage space, a processor, and software— are conventional. The recited functionalities—reserving the storage space for advertising data, selecting advertising data targeted to a user, storing that data, and making that data accessible to the user—are likewise basic and routine. As Petitioner points out, the specification expressly acknowledges that some of the tangible components of the recited system were known. See Pet. 7–8, 33–34, 40–75; Ex. 1008 ¶ 949. For instance, the specification refers to storage device 14 as “any medium known in the art for storing electronic data” and similarly, “any storage device for audio/video information known in the art.” Ex. 1003, 13:22–28, 15:1–5, 24:66–25:7; see id. at [57], 5:3–6, 21:42–22:2. The testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Negus, also persuade us that each recited component and functionality was generic, conventional, and known. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 945, 949–954; see id. ¶¶ 955–987.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · EnfishPatents in suitUS 9,053,494 - Twilio Inc. v. Telesign CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2018 · IPR2016-01688 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over Bennett and Campbell under § 103(a).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’792 patent would have had “at least an undergraduate degree in computer science, or equivalent experience, and in addition would be familiar with Internet and telephone communications.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 11–20). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assessment in its Response. Based on the record developed during trial, including our review of the ’792 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’792 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“As shown in the chart above, the ’792 patent claims priority as a continuation or divisional application of a series of applications, and as a continuation-in-part (CIP) of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/034,421 (Ex. 1027, “the ’421 application”), filed on January 11, 2005. See Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 7–25. Petitioner argues that there is no presumption that the challenged claims are entitled to the filing date of the ’421 application, because the Office did not consider priority during prosecution of the ’792 patent, and the ’421 application does not provide written description support for certain limitations pertaining to the recited “notification event” in independent claims 1 and 10 of the ’792 patent. Pet. 9–15. In our Decision on Institution, we agreed with Petitioner, based on the record at the time, that the challenged claims are not entitled to the filing date of the ’421 application, and the earliest effective filing date of the challenged claims is October 5, 2006. Dec. on Inst. 10–12. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the effective filing date of the challenged claims in its Response, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that compels any deviation from our earlier conclusion. Thus, we adopt the previous analysis, and conclude that Bennett is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and Campbell is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[ ].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily interpreted the claim term “notification event” to mean an event that results in the user being notified that the event occurred. Dec. on Inst. 6–10. The parties apply this interpretation in their Response and Reply, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that compels any deviation from our earlier interpretation. See Resp. 14–15; Reply 11. We adopt the previous analysis and conclude that no other terms require interpretation.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s position, in effect, would require that a single prior art reference have to disclose the full concept of a “notification event” “associated with” an “action” requiring user acknowledgement. See, e.g., PO Resp. 18–19 (arguing that “[t]he Petition would need to rely on Campbell to teach the notification-event limitations . . . because Bennett does not, . . . but Petitioner fails to adequately argue or show that Campbell teaches such actions”); Tr. 18:7–19:9 (acknowledging that there need not be one reference disclosing the entire limitation, but arguing that “one cannot untether the action from the notification event”). The test for obviousness, however, is “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining that in an obviousness analysis, “the prior art must be considered as a whole for what it teaches”); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”). Petitioner explains sufficiently what the combined teachings of Bennett and Campbell would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art, namely, “events” in Bennett that trigger an SMS message to the user and that have associated “actions,” and adding a sentence to the SMS message in Bennett to provide notification to the user that the event occurred. See Pet. 37–59; Reply 16 (“Bennett discloses different types of ‘actions’ and Campbell discloses ‘notification events.’ . . . Thus, it is the combination of Bennett and Campbell that discloses ‘notification events associated with actions.’”). Thus, we are persuaded that, collectively, Bennett and Campbell account for a “notification event” “associated with” an “action” requiring user acknowledgement, as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 9,300,792 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,300,792 - Oracle America Inc. / Oracle Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 8, 2018 · IPR2016-01434 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–13 and 15–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 14 was not shown unpatentable because the cited personal notes were not “content contributed.”
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“While the parties use slightly different language, we are unable to discern any substantive differences between the proffered levels of skill and basic qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Dr. Papakonstantinou’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill as our own, if for no other reason then for its conciseness, with the understanding that the differences between the proffered levels of ordinary skill are limited and inconsequential in our analysis.” slip op. at 23
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“above-identified single statement in the specification, which uses permissible language such as “can be” and “does not need to be,” is sufficient to justify Patent Owner’s assertions, which for all practical purposes, is a disavowal of claim scope. See Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent a clear disavowal in the specification or the prosecution history, the patentee is entitled to the full scope of its claim language.”) We also credit the testimony of Dr. Almeroth over that of Dr. Papakonstantinou, because, among other reasons, Dr. Almeroth supports his testimony with relevant citations to the specification, while Dr. Papakonstantinou largely repeats that which is set forth in the Patent Owner Response, without further analysis. graphical fields that allow the input of administrative information without programming” are advantageous over “cumbersome programming performed in the past.” Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 44, 47. We treat this argument as subsumed within Patent Owner’s argument that the specification disparages prior art systems that require HTML programming to perform administrative tasks.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“224, 232 encompasses a “link to content.” In application, however, “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 is actually two separate components: (1) the underlying technical set of computer instructions that, upon clicking the link associated with “what is a wireless LAN?” 232, transports a user to a web page associated with “what is a wireless LAN?” 232; and (2) the words “what is a wireless LAN?” 224 itself displayed on the computer display, but separate from the technical set of computer instructions set forth in (1). In this example, (1) is “link to content, but not itself ‘content,’” however, (2) is itself “content.” More precisely, when we now consider “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 in relation to the aforementioned construction of “content” as “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” it becomes clear that “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 is both “links to content” and “content.” Specifically, component (1) of “what is a wireless LAN?” 232 is “links to content,” but not “content” itself, because the underlying technical set of computer instructions is not “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” but for a computer. By contrast, component (2) of “what is a wireless LAN?” 224 is “content,” as it is clearly “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” in that the words “what is a wireless LAN?” are intended to convey information to an individual. So, as a practical matter, we discern that every disclosure of a “link to content” that includes “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals” (i.e., any information associated with a “link” that is separate from a generic indication of the “link” itself), is “content.” See also Ex. 3001, 6–16 (providing further analysis concerning construction, which we expressly incorporate herein). Accordingly, we determine that a proper construction of “content” is “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” and excluding “links to content,” but not excluding “content” associated with the “links to content.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. We are persuaded that “administrative interface” is broader than the “administrative page” mentioned in the specification, in that an “administrative interface” may encompass 9 While discussing “graphical user interface” during oral argument, Patent Owner stated that it was not disclaiming claim scope. Tr. 47:20–22 (“We’re not arguing that the claim terms have been disclaimed in some phrase.”). something other than an “administrative page.” We are also persuaded that the specification’s disclosure of a non-limiting embodiment, that of a highlyautomated and browser-based “administrative page,” does not require that a proper construction of “administrative interface” include “graphical user interface.” As admitted by Patent Owner, these pages are “example[s]” only, and, at best, merely “impl[y]” the presence of a “graphical user interface.” See PO Resp. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002, 16:39–44; Ex. 2002 ¶ 40). We are persuaded that an “implied example” does not belong in a proper construction of a claim term. Indeed, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s factual premise, concerning the above “implied example,” is flawed, as the specification’s “reference to automation and a browser provides no basis for restricting the claimed ‘administrative interface’ to a graphical user interface.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 15) (Dr. Almeroth testifies that “automation of computer systems does not require a graphical user interface.”). More specifically, Dr. Almeroth identifies other automated “interfaces” in the specification, such as “a networked cash register, bar code scanner or electronic product code reader” (Ex. 1002, 13:8–15, 14:51–52) that do not require a “graphical user interface.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 14. We agree with Dr. Almeroth’s analysis of the specification. Dr. Almeroth asserts further, and we agree, again, that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would understand that that cash register could be connected to a server that is accessible only via a command line interface, and that administrators could use command-line tools . . . to group content on that server.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 14. Patent Owner cites In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149–1150 (Fed. Cir. 2012) for its finding of an implicit definition of a” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,516,177 - Google Inc. v. Performance Pricing Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 13, 2017 · CBM2016-00050 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable under §§ 101 and 112(a) because they claim an abstract advertising-pricing idea implemented with conventional technology and lack written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Considering these factors, we agree with Petitioner that a degree in computer science is not required for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Reply 4. First, as Patent Owner admitted at the hearing, the named inventor, Mr. Rosenberg, does not have a computer science degree. Tr. 87:8–22. Second, as Patent Owner’s Response makes clear, the problems encountered in the field of the ’059 patent are problems of maintaining advertising customers, when viewer response to an ad can be tracked and there is an almost limitless inventory. PO Resp. 5–7. These are economic and business problems caused by the particular market conditions present in the Internet advertising market—large inventory and a high level of knowledge of behavior in the market. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 36. We are persuaded that a computer science degree would not provide a person with further useful insight into such economic and business problems. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40. Indeed, this understanding is confirmed by the ’059 patent, which describes the business problems Internet advertising had on sellers of advertising. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 1:55–59 (“As systems of accountability are developed and the amount of advertising inventory increases, vendors or publishers in all media will be faced with the problems of attracting advertisers while, at the same time, covering overhead costs.”); 1:60–63 (noting “[o]ne problem associated with current methods of selling Internet advertising is the difficulty of striking a fair and reasonable balance between fixed-fee pricing and performance-based pricing”); 1:63–3:24 (describing characteristics of the Internet advertising market); 3:27–31 (“[T]he present invention include methods and systems for selling advertising, which incorporates a unique pricing model wherein advertising Buyers earn bonus exposure to the advertising message based on the reflected interest by the Viewers in that advertising message.”). Third, the discussion of computer components in the ’059 patent is only at a very high level. See, e.g., id. at 8:33–9:9 (discussing the components of the claimed system as only “computers,” “servers,” “databases,” “network protocol (such as Hypertext Transfer Protocol or HTTP)”). This indicates that the focus is not on the computer technology, but the pricing strategy. Fourth, the prior art solutions discussed in the ’059 patent are all in terms of different pricing models—“fixed fee” or “performance based”—not in terms of technical solutions. See id. at 1:55– 3:24. Finally, Patent Owner submits a job announcement by Petitioner for hiring a “Technical Program Manager, Ads Quality, AdWords,” as evidence of the level of skill of workers in this field. PO Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 2006 (Google Technical Program Manager, Ads Quality, AdWords Job Announcement)). However, no evidence or explanation is provided why this announcement should be given particular weight for defining the educational level of active workers in the field of the ’059 patent, beyond the fact that they both nominally involve Internet advertising. See PO Resp. 29. Moreover, no evidence or explanation is provided why a job announcement from 2016 would relate to the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., at the latest, 2001, the effective filing date of the ’059 patent. See id. Thus, we give Ex. 2006 little weight. Accordingly, considering this evidence together, we agree with Petitioner that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have, through education or practical experience, the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in business, economics, or a similar discipline and/or two years of experience with media buying or selling, including Internet advertising or e-commerce systems.” Pet. 17. slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“lacks a computer science degree, he is not a person of ordinary skill and we should give his testimony no weight. PO Resp. 29. As set forth above, we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill above is correct. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive. Dr. Farris is a tenured professor of business and during his career, Dr. Farris has written a number of articles and books on advertising, including Internet advertising. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–19, Appendix B. He has also taught a number of courses in Internet advertising, and has done extensive consulting on Internet advertising. Id. Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, we are persuaded that Dr. Farris’s experience is more than sufficient for him to provide competent testimony on the subject matter of the ’059 patent. Accordingly, we decline to give his testimony no weight.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We construe the challenged claims according to these principles. In our Decision to Institute, we determined that no terms required express construction. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner contends that we should construe the term “impression,” recited in claim 1, as “presentation of an Internet advertising message.” PO Resp. 29–31. In the Reply, Petitioner indicates that it agrees with Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation and points to the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Farris and Patent Owner’s declarant Mr. Zatkovich for support. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27, Ex. 1017, 44:19–45:19, 142:15–143:12). This is also the construction we adopted in our Decision to Institute in the related proceeding, CBM2016- 00049. See Google Inc. v. Performance Price Holdings, LLC, Case CBM2016-00049, slip op. 5–6 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2016) (Paper 10). Given that this construction is consistent with the specification, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “impression” as “presentation of an Internet advertising message.” See Ex. 1002, 2:36–44, 5:12–16.” slip op. at 15
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that these claims are drawn to an abstract idea. Specifically, we agree with Petitioner that the claims of the challenged patent are directed to decreasing the cost of an advertisement based on the performance of the ad, and that such a concept is an abstract idea. Pet. 19. More succinctly, we are persuaded that the claims are directed to a performance-based pricing model for advertising, and that such a pricing model is an abstract idea. The clear language of the claims and unambiguous disclosure of the specification to the contrary belie Patent Owner’s arguments. For example, beginning with independent claims 1 and 6, the only equipment that those claims identify are a “processor” and “at least one storage device in communication with the at least one processor.” Ex. 1002, 12:24–25, 12:56–57. The remainder of the claim is simply a method embodied in instructions stored on the storage device. As discussed above, these claimed method steps include having the processor (i) “ascertain[ ] . . . a predetermined cost to an entity per impression of an advertising message,” (ii) “present[ ] . . . the advertising message for display on a website such that the advertising message is viewable via one or more viewer computers,” (iii) “detect[ ] . . . a quantity of actions performed by users of the one or more viewer computers,” and (iv) “decrease[e] the cost per impression of the advertising message to the entity below the predetermined cost” as the “quantity of detected actions increases.” Id. at 12:30–43. Thus, the focus of the claims is on collecting and analyzing data for the pricing method, not the hardware on which it is performed or the software that implicitly causes it to happen. The specification reinforces the abstract nature of the claimed invention. The “Summary of the Invention,” explains that “[e]mbodiments of the present invention include methods and system for selling advertising, which incorporates a unique pricing model wherein advertising Buyers earn bonus exposure to the advertising message based on the reflected interest by the Viewers in that advertising message.” Id. at 3:27–33. Indeed, the specification describes the advantages of the claimed invention include helping sellers secure fixed-fee pricing while offering a performance-based incentive to buyers, and attracting potential buyers, while maintaining customer loyalty, encouraging effective creative advertising design and placement, and assisting sellers in managing unsold inventory. Id. at 3:34– 39. These advantages all concern abstract concepts, and not technology.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,799,059 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 8,799,059 - Zepp Labs, Inc. v. Blast Motion, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00677 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 are unpatentable: claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 as obvious over Mahajan, and claim 2 as obvious over Mahajan and Dugan.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Based on the above, we modify Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill as follows: “a person with a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field with two to three years of experience working with data acquisition systems, including motion data captured using markers and sensors.” We decline, however, to limit the level of ordinary skill to “designing wireless motion capture sensors,” as the ’928 Patent does not disclose being limited to “design” and “wireless” sensors. We note, however, that, in this case, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For example, the prior art of record, such as Mahajan, has been shown to relate to the field of data acquisition systems, and, in particular, motion capture sensors.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyOther
“basis for the proposed modification, nor identifies any benefit. PO Resp. 17–23. We disagree. The relevant portion of the Petition cites expressly to paragraphs 42 and 127 of Mahajan, and in quoting paragraph 127, Petitioner bolds the following: “‘[t]he apparatus can be used alone or in conjunction with other hardware . . . or software . . . and may be adapted for wired transmission of data, wireless transmission of data, or for storage of data on the apparatus.’” Pet. 17. The next sentence of the Petition then reads “[t]hus, Mahajan teaches that the on-board memory component for storage of data on the apparatus is an obvious design choice.” Pet. 17. This statement is supported by Dr. Nesbitt’s testimony, with which we agree, explaining that Mahajan provides the option to include on-board memory and leaves it to the designer to include it, considering that it was common to include memory in data capture systems to store the captured data. Ex. 1003 ¶ 115. We are unclear as to how this portion of the Petition can be read as asserting anything other than coupling memory for the purpose of data storage would have been, as Petitioner phrases it, an “obvious design choice” to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For the purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term needs express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Accordingly, given our above findings that (1) Mahajan discloses a microcontroller and (2) coupling memory for the purpose of data storage was known to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, we have little trouble in concluding that it would have been obvious to modify microcontroller 50 of Mahajan by coupling memory thereto for the purpose, i.e., the predictable reason to combine of, of data storage. With no persuasive evidence of unpredictability or change in function of the microcontroller with memory combination, nothing more is required under KSR, nor under other Federal Circuit precedent. See Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)) (“a finding of obviousness at the time of invention requires a ‘plausible rational [sic] as to why the prior art references would have worked together’” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,944,928 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,944,928 - Smart Microwave Sensors GmbH v. Wavetronix LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 17, 2017 · IPR2016-00488 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, and 25 are unpatentable, including as anticipated by Boles or Farmer and obvious over combinations including Boles, Farmer, Herman, and others.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted
“1. Exhibits 1002, 1008, 1009, and 1012 Patent Owner argues the date printed on each of Exhibits 1002, 1008, 1009, and 1012, is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 801 and 802 as out of court statement offered to prove that truth of the matter asserted—that each document was a printed publication as of the date printed on that document (i.e., that it was sufficiently publicly accessible). Paper 45, 2–3 (citing Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., Case IPR2014-00148, Paper 41 (PTAB April 23, 2015)). As discussed supra, we agree with Patent Owner that the dates printed on these Exhibits are hearsay with no applicable exception. Thus, we grant Patent Owner’s motion requesting that we exclude the copyright notice date from each of Exhibits 1008, 1009, and 1012, and exclude the date of the EuMC conference on Exhibit 1002. However, we note that the documents per se are not excluded from the record as hearsay—only the date imprinted on each as proof of the printed publication status of each document. The underlying documents of these Exhibits are offered not to prove the publication dates thereof but, instead, are statements offered to demonstrate the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner may rely on other evidence to establish the date of public accessibility of each of these documents, the analysis of which we have set forth supra. See Section II.B.1–4.” slip op. at 54
- Skill levelNot reached
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“data about multiple vehicles on a particular section of roadway (PO Resp. 7– 8), Petitioner counters by identifying references in the field of traffic engineering that use mobile sensors (i.e., not at a fixed location) for acquiring “traffic data.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1031 ¶¶ 6, 22, 181–183). Referring to pages 7–13 of Exhibit 1031 (Texas Highway Operations Manual discussing “Vehicle-based Equipment”), Patent Owner’s expert testified, on cross-examination, as follows: Q In view of the paragraph, would it be accurate to note that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of the traffic stream? A It says that a vehicle-mounted radar unit can be used to measure the timing speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream. It does not say it is used to measure the traffic stream. Q I said measure the speed of the traffic. A Yes. This says it is measuring the speed of vehicles in the traffic stream. Q So one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of vehicles in a traffic stream? A That is how it’s worded, the speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream. Ex. 1036, 98:21–99:13. In light of that testimony, we determine that Patent Owner’s expert testimony in support of their assertion is not credible.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Id. at 49:19–50:10. Given, at best, significant ambiguity as to whether the Specification and other evidence requires that “traffic data” must refer to “all or substantially all vehicles,” we are persuaded that such a requirement would not be proper under a broadest reasonable construction. Regarding Patent Owner’s assertion that “traffic data” is limited to data about multiple vehicles on a particular section of roadway (PO Resp. 7– 8), Petitioner counters by identifying references in the field of traffic engineering that use mobile sensors (i.e., not at a fixed location) for acquiring “traffic data.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1031 ¶¶ 6, 22, 181–183). Referring to pages 7–13 of Exhibit 1031 (Texas Highway Operations Manual discussing “Vehicle-based Equipment”), Patent Owner’s expert testified, on cross-examination, as follows: Q In view of the paragraph, would it be accurate to note that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of the traffic stream? A It says that a vehicle-mounted radar unit can be used to measure the timing speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream. It does not say it is used to measure the traffic stream. Q I said measure the speed of the traffic. A Yes. This says it is measuring the speed of vehicles in the traffic stream. Q So one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the equipment located in a vehicle can be used to measure the speed of vehicles in a traffic stream? A That is how it’s worded, the speed of other vehicles in the traffic stream.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 6,693,557 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,693,557 - Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont Hospital And Elekta, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00187 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 25–29 and 35–42 are unpatentable: claims 25–29 and 36–39 as obvious, and claims 35 and 40–42 as anticipated.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Analysis Petitioner asserts that Jaffray ’97 anticipates claims 35 and 40–42. Pet. 41–45 (citing Exs. 1003, 1004). For example, independent claim 35 recites “providing an existing radiation therapy system that comprises a radiation source that is supported on a support structure.” Petitioner cites Jaffray ’97 for disclosing a rotating gantry including an MV source. Independent claim 35 recites further “attaching an imager that does not directly 5 We refer to the original pagination of Jaffray ’97, and not Petitioner’s pagination. face said radiation source to said support structure.” Petitioner cites Jaffray ’97 for disclosing a kV imager that does not directly face the MV source. Petitioner provides similar analyses for claims 40–42. Patent Owner does not dispute any of the Petitioner’s assertions. 3. Conclusion After considering all of the above-referenced evidence and arguments anew, in light of the appropriate standard, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 35 and 40–42 are anticipated by Jaffray ’97.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), reaffirmed the framework for determining obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). The KSR Court summarized the four factual inquiries set forth in Graham that we apply in determining whether a claim is reasonably likely to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: 1. determining the scope and content of the prior art, 2. ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, 3. resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and 4. considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. With these standards in mind, we address the challenges based on obviousness below.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive. Initially, we note that Patent Owner does not dispute that Span discloses the movable imager support system recited in claim 25. Nor does Patent Owner dispute that Span’s movable support system is a known improvement. Ex. 1005, 2:59– 63 (disclosing that due to the movable support structure, imaging equipment “can be very easily moved by rotation of the arm 14 about the pivot 24”). Instead, Patent Owner alleges that one of ordinary skill would not have modified the CBCT system of Jaffray ’97 to include the Span’s movable support system, for the known improvement of facilitating movement of a detector toward and away from a patient, because there is no need for such an improvement for a CBCT system. PO Resp. 14–20 (citing Exs. 1005, 1:12–21, 1:30–35, 2:35–36, 2:38–44, 2:48–55, 2:59–63, 3:2–4, Fig. 1a; 2080 ¶¶ 78–85, 100–103, 117). Patent Owner’s argument is misplaced, because Petitioner’s proffered modification is for the known improvement of movement generally, and not limited to the movement of a detector toward and away from a patient disclosed in Span. Specifically, Petitioner asserts: Jaffray ’97 does suggest that “important characteristics [of the imaging system] include . . . (iii) flexibility of use . . . and, (v) convenience.” (Id. at 5.) Span addresses this flexibility and convenience, explaining that, with the disclosed support structure, equipment “can be very easily moved by rotation of the arm 14 about the pivot 24 . . . .’’ (Ex. 1005 at 2:59–63.) Pet. 27–28. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 419 (“The second error of the Court of Appeals lay in its assumption that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem.”). The Petition does not rely on the movement in Span being limited to “toward and away from a patient.” See generally Pet. 27–28.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’592 Patent would be a person with a graduate degree (M.S. or Ph.D.) in medical physics or a related field (e.g. Physics, Engineering) and three years of experience in radiation oncology physics, imaging science, and image processing related to radiation oncology applications beyond the completion date of their degree. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. The Declarants are in agreement that the person of ordinary skill in the art has a relatively high level of skill, and also are in agreement as to the basic qualifications for that person. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s Declarant’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill as our own, if for no other reason than for conciseness, with the understanding that the differences between the proffered levels of ordinary skill are, at best, limited and inconsequential in our analysis.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 7,826,592 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,826,592 - Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Novadaq Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,420,151 - Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris Industries, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 1, 2017 · IPR2015-01788 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 are unpatentable as obvious over Enokimoto and Dangauthier; claims 7–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Enokimoto, Dangauthier, and Bennett.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Specification discloses indirect coupling through a bearing carrier for the control arms and radius arms, but Patent Owner contends that coupling precludes indirect coupling through a bearing carrier for the claimed dampening member. As Petitioner persuasively argues, however, the Specification does not create a sufficiently clear disclaimer or distinction that limits “coupling” for dampening members to a bearing or other indirect coupling, while, at the same time, not limiting the same term “coupling” for the radius arms and control arms. See Pet. Reply 2; Ex. 1001 ¶ 67; Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 4–5 (testifying that “coupling” should not be differently construed for different components). And as noted above, Patent Owner concedes that coupling, even for the dampening member, includes indirect coupling via “a bearing or a bushing.” See PO Resp. 15. The Specification simply does not describe or differentiate coupling via a bearing and a bushing versus a bearing carrier, or coupling for a dampening member versus a control arm, radius arm, or other component, in a sufficient manner that allows, let alone requires, a narrowing of coupling for one suspension element (dampening member) versus another (control and radius arms).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Given the similar location of Enokimoto’s engine and radius arm relative to a vehicle frame, Petitioner proposes modifying Enokimoto to include a sway bar, i.e., modifying Enokimoto’s radius arm 45 in a fashion similar to Dangauthier’s radius arm 3 and sway bar 13. See Pet. 32–36. As noted above, Patent Owner acknowledges that skilled artisans would have been motivated to add a sway bar to Enokimoto, but contends that they would not use Dangauthier’s system. See PO Resp. 44–45; Ex. 2044 ¶ 107. Patent Owner’s central thrust urges nonobviousness because skilled artisans allegedly would have ignored Dangauthier’s teachings and instead, modified Dangauthier to implement another sway bar mounting location. As Dr. Davis testifies, however, “nothing in Dangauthier or Enokimoto suggests to one of ordinary skill that Dangauthier’s sway bar should be re-engineered if applied to different vehicles.” See Ex. 1028 ¶ 8 (emphasis added). Dr. Moskwa also contends that “Dangauthier’s compact suspension does not allow space for an engine between the rear drive unit and the sway bar,” and “[t]hat is why Dangauthier places his suspension system rearward of his engine.” See Ex. 2044 ¶ 107. Patent Owner makes a related argument that Dangauthier’s teaching of a “compact” rear suspension system “does not allow space for an engine.” PO Resp. 44–45. This testimony and these arguments focus too narrowly on Dangauthier’s engine location and rear differential space. Contrary to the testimony, no persuasive evidence exists on this record showing that Dangauthier’s system uses a forward engine due to a lack of rear space; rather, the system simply employs a forward engine with a rear drive train with differential D that takes up similar space that a small engine would. See Ex. 1004, Fig. 2 (differential D). In addition, the proposed combination relies primarily on Enokimoto’s engine location and size and Dangauthier’s suggestion of a sway bar located near the pivot point of a radius arm for any type of engine location. See Ex. 1004, Figs. 1–3; 1:11–17. Petitioner does not rely on using any alleged specific size related to Dangauthier’s suspension system or on bodily incorporating all aspects of that suspension system.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Similar to the situation in ClassCo, we afford the evidence of commercial vehicle sales and praise little weight, because we determine that the broadly recited claims capture features well-known in the art, and they do not recite or require several features that Patent Owner’s cited literature touts as important and describes as part of an “entire [vehicle] package.” See Ex. 2027, 26 (describing the “ultimate thrill ride this entire package creates”) (emphasis added). In making these findings as outlined below with more particularity, we stress that we do not require Patent Owner to show success for each commercial or disclosed embodiment that falls in the scope of the challenged claims. See infra notes 11 (nexus presumed), 14 (summarizing some cited precedent).” slip op. at 55
Patent outcomesUS 8,746,719 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,746,719
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.