• Pascal Technologies v. Cambridge Enterprise Limited, Universitat De Barcelona, And Universitat Politècnica De CatalunyaInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01235 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 6–11, and 14–16 on all proposed grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the §103 ground over Mañosa and Patel.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016), 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedPrinted publication not establishedMixed

    “[T]here is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under § 42.108(c) or any other authority. . . . [T]he burden is on the petitioner to identify with particularity evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent, and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” slip op. at 20

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

    “May” expresses a possibility. The Specification reflects this interpretation of “may” when it states that “[i]n one embodiment, the organic material is not lyotropic. Thus, the organic material may not be a phospholipid.” Ex. 1001, 8:27–28 (emphasis added). One of ordinary skill would understand from this that the organic material “may not be” a phospholipid if the organic material is not lyotropic. It follows that if the organic material is lyotropic, then the organic material may be a phospholipid. Reading the statement “[t]he organic material may not be . . . a phospholipid” (id. at 8:59–63) in light of the earlier stated possibility that the organic material may be a phospholipid if the organic material is lyotropic, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret “may not be” as excluding phospholipids under some conditions, not under all conditions. Taking the Specification’s discussion about phospholipids as exemplifying the permissive nature of the word “may,” we are unpersuaded that in stating that “[t]he organic material may not be [PMMA], a polyvinylidene difluoride-containing polymer, such as [PVDF] or PVDF- TrFE-CTFE, or a phospholipid, such as [DHPE]’” (Ex. 1001, 8:59–63), the specification “contains a clear and unmistakable disavowal of the compounds PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE” and “disclaims the listed compounds” from the “organic material” of the claims under all conditions, as Patent Owner argues. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Moreover, the claims themselves limit the “organic material” only to the extent that it is “barocaloric cooling or heating agent” and can perform in the manner claimed. See Ex. 1001, claim 1, supra. As broadly worded, the claims do not exclude PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE per se from the group of organic materials employed by the claimed method. Adopting Patent Owner’s construction would impermissibly import a limitation (i.e., not exclude PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE) into the claims. For the reasons stated, at this stage of the proceeding, we agree with Petitioner’s broad construction of “organic material.” We do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction whereby PMMA, PVDF, PVDF- TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE are excluded from the scope of the claim term “organic material.” The parties are invited to address this issue further during trial, if desired. slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner shows that (a) Mañosa (i.e., inorganic compounds such as Ni-Mn-In, Gd5Si2Ge2, and La-Fe-Co-Si) and (b) Patel (i.e., PVDF-TrFE- CTFE) teach materials exhibiting inverse BCEs. Pet. 59 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1007, pages 4–8; Ex. 1009, 1, 4–5; Ex. 1004 ¶ 108). In our view, at this stage, Petitioner sufficiently shows (via the five reasons listed supra) why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the barocaloric cooling or heating agent of Patel for that taught in Mañosa, thereby reaching the claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. Cf. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (U.S., 2007) (“The Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”)” slip op. at 32

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,230,656
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2024 · IPR2022-01600 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–7 and 9–20 over Olmos and Varela ’774, and claim 8 over Olmos, Varela ’774, and Oglaza.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”): would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or biomedical engineering and two or more years of experience in biomechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, and/or spinal implant devices. A person could also have qualified as a POSITA with some combination of more formal education (e.g., an M.D.) and less technical experience or less formal education and more technical or professional experience in the foregoing fields, and would have had further appreciation of various technical concepts in this field. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32–35). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. See Response 8. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “We credit Mr. Drewry’s testimony that it would have been well within the ordinary skill of a POSITA to make the proposed modifications. See Ex. 1002 (Drewry Decl.) ¶¶ 34, 56–71 (discussing the qualifications of a POSITA and the types of engineering concepts the POSITA would have understood); Ex. 1030 (Drewry Reply Decl.) ¶¶ 37, 48–56, 59–66. To the extent Mr. Culbert testifies otherwise, we do not find such testimony persuasive. Indeed, Olmos itself further supports Mr. Drewry’s testimony that a POSITA would have known how to modify dimensions to fit specific needs and make changes necessary to adapt features from one embodiment to fit another. See Ex. 1006 (Olmos) ¶¶ 153, 188 (providing a range of implant sizes and noting that “specific dimensions” of any disclosed 9 Patent Owner’s citation to Mr. Drewry’s deposition transcript at 87:13– 88:9 appears to be incorrect. We understand that the intended citation is 69:34–70:7. embodiment can be varied as is apparent to a POSITA and “all features discussed in connection with any one embodiment herein can be readily adapted for use in other embodiments herein to form various combinations and sub-combinations”). Given the POSITA’s ability to make the proposed modifications, we do not find that Patent Owner’s evidence regarding the number of modifications required undermines Petitioner’s articulated reasoning for the combination.” slip op. at 35

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

    “Petitioner asserts that “no terms require constructions differing from their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner states that it “takes no position on Petitioner’s assertion because the Board need not construe any claim term to find that the Challenged Claims are not unpatentable.” Response 8. We find that for purposes of this Decision, we need not construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 21

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

  Patent outcomesUS 10,973,649 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,973,649
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2024 · IPR2022-01435 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable: Chung anticipates claim 10, and the Olmos-based obviousness grounds establish unpatentability of claims 1–11.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “9 Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s Reply brief “presents copious new evidence and theories that exceed the scope of proper reply” and “[t]he Board should refuse to consider” it. Sur-reply 7–9. This generic objection to the entire Reply fails to provide adequate notice regarding which of Petitioner’s theories and arguments Patent Owner contends are allegedly new and improper. See, e.g., Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (rejecting generic objection to alleged new theories in reply as failing to provide adequate notice of which theories are allegedly new). Accordingly, we reject Patent Owner’s request that we “refuse to consider” the entirety of the Reply. Where Patent Owner’s Sur-reply raises more particularized complaints regarding Petitioner’s allegedly improper new arguments, we address those complaints as appropriate below.” slip op. at 20

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Accordingly, we find Petitioner has not shown that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Chung.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 10,137,001 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,137,001
• Incyte Corporation v. Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 11, 2022 · PGR2021-00006 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–7 and 9–21 not shown unpatentable over either obviousness ground because Petitioner did not establish motivation to select Compound (I) from Silverman’s genus.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “It is not necessary for an expert’s experience or expertise to precisely match the art at issue. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, one offering expert testimony must at least have ordinary skill in the art to provide relevant and reliable testimony that is helpful to the factfinder. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). “The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf?MURL=). Dr. Patterson has a Ph.D. in Chemistry and over 30 years of experience in drug design, drug administration, evaluation of drug effectiveness, and participated in drug design for over 20 years. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 4–10; Ex. 1008, 1–2. He is author or co-author on over eight peer-reviewed journal articles involving medicinal chemistry. Ex. 1007 ¶ 5. We find this level of skill to meet the qualifications for the level of skill in the art under the training and experience portion of the definition we have adopted for purposes of this opinion (see § II.B.), reproduced below: a Ph.D. in chemistry, pharmaceutical sciences, molecular biology, or a similar field, or an M.D. with similar background. A POSA would also have had at least several years of experience with drug design, drug development, clinical trials, or access to other individuals with that knowledge and experience. Likewise, a POSA would have had knowledge and experience in treating hair loss disorders, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience. We note that Dr. Patterson himself also proposes this definition. Id. ¶ 102. However, Dr. Patterson does not have “knowledge and experience in treating hair loss disorders” and did not opine that, in regards to his testimony, he had access to a person with that knowledge and experience, as is proposed in the definition. See generally, Ex. 1007. Accordingly, we find Dr. Patterson qualified to opine on the level of ordinary skill with regard to issues of drug design, evaluation of effectiveness, and drug administration, but we find he is not adequately qualified to opine on the level of ordinary skill with regard to issues of treating hair loss disorders.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner proposes the same definition as Petitioner, but adds that the skilled artisan “would also have had experience in JAK inhibition, deuteration, and AA [alopecia areata] formulations, or access to a person with that knowledge and experience.” Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2059 ¶ 14). Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Ko critiques Petitioner’s proposed definition as “incomplete, because it lacks any requirement for experience, or access to individuals with experience, in JAK inhibition, deuteration, and AA formulations.” Ex. 2059 ¶ 16. However, neither Dr. Ko nor Patent Owner explains what difference this additional direct experience would have provided to an artisan with the skill level proposed by Petitioner, particularly when Petitioner’s definition includes “experience in treating hair loss disorders,” and for which the record contains evidence that existing JAK inhibitors such as ruxolitinib had been identified as causing reversal of hair loss caused by AA. Ex. 1003, 1043. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition as consistent with the level of skill apparent in the cited prior art. In any event, as Patent Owner does not explain why its alternative definition would have any bearing on the outcome of the present case, and as we discern no appreciable difference in the parties’ definitions, we note our findings and conclusions would be the same regardless of which definition were adopted. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates 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) (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 Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 11

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

    “C. Claim Construction We 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). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100. Therefore, we construe the challenged claims under the framework set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under this framework, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”), at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id. Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We have considered Petitioner’s claim construction proposals (see Pet. 21–23), which are uncontested (see generally Resp., not addressing construction), and find that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim term for purposes of rendering this Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Section 102(b)(1) provides two exceptions to § 102(a)(1) for disclosures made within one year of the effective filing date. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1) provides that a disclosure made one year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) with respect to the claimed invention if: (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,561,659 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,561,659
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 30, 2016 · IPR2015-00377 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–16, 18–24, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious; the challenges to claims 2, 8, 11, 17, 25, and 27 were not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “claims). Pet. 7. In our Decision to Institute, we determined the broadest reasonable construction of anomalous is: “deviation/deviating from a model of typical computer system usage.” Dec. 6. We specifically recognized that the Specification contemplates that “attack data” may be used to build the model used as a baseline for comparison to identify anomalous behavior. Id. Neither party has indicated that our determination in regard to that claim construction was improper, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from our initial determination.” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “one of these distinct models, the ‘Oracle model,’ is combined with other models.” Pet. Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1008, 11:53–64 (showing that a selected ‘Oracle model’ is used in combination with a k-means algorithm and a Markov transition model); Ex. 1015 (Goodrich Suppl. Decl.) ¶ 19). Petitioner has not explained, however, why models created on different computers would be relevant to Khazan’s static model where the specific execution of two different computers would not affect the model.2 See In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., 536 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (reasoning that even though a certain modification could have been possible, it would not have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art “would not have seen any need” to make the modification). Although we acknowledge Petitioner’s argument that Agrawal teaches using a combined model from different processors and the testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Goodrich to that effect (Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 84)), we are not persuaded that this would be sufficient to motivate the 2 Petitioner’s Declarant, in his supplemental declaration, states “[u]sing multiple computers spreads the computational overhead involved in creating the models across the computers, and allows for more models to be created in a shorter amount of time.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 20. We do not rely on this statement because this theory was not presented in the Petition and although the paragraph containing this language is cited to in Petitioner’s Reply at page 6, it is not explained or specifically relied upon. 24 combination given the differences discussed above. In other words, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that there was a motivation to apply the models produced on different computers as taught by Agrawal to the system of Khazan. Therefore, Petitioner, has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 11, and 27 were obvious over the combination of Khazan and Agrawal.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot shown unpatentableUnpatentableMixed

    “Petitioner also asserts through its Declarant that “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that random selection of models is one of a finite number of identified, predictable selection techniques and it would be obvious to try random selection among models because it has a reasonable expectation of success.” Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 86). Petitioner does not explain how random selection is one of a finite number of predictable selection techniques; for example, Petitioner does not show how many other techniques could be considered. See Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“KSR posits a situation with a finite, and in the context of the art, small or easily traversed, number of options that would convince an ordinarily skilled artisan of obviousness . . . . [T]his clearly is not the easily traversed, small and finite number of alternatives that KSR suggested might support an inference of obviousness.”). Dr. Goodrich has not identified sufficient support for the predictability of the art. For example, Dr. Goodrich has not explained sufficiently why, or identified evidence that shows the invention described in the ’322 Patent falls into a very predictable field, one of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed the requisite skills to make the proposed combinations, or one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have anticipated the combination to function in an ordinary and expected way. See Rothman v. Target Corp., 556 F.3d 1310, 1319–20 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 21 Finally, Petitioner cites Sobel (Ex. 1011)1 as support for it being “obvious to randomly select a subset of a group of computing choices.” Pet. 30. Petitioner characterizes Sobel’s teachings too broadly. Ex. 2030 ¶ 117. Sobel is directed to “providing software updates to a random sample of computers,” not to randomly selecting models. Pet. 30. Thus, we are not persuaded that Sobel is relevant to the inquiry here. For the reasons stated above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8, 17, and 25 were obvious over the combination of Khazan and Agrawal.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition fails to propose properly a level of ordinary skill in the Petition itself and that the level of skill suggested by Petitioner’s Declarant is higher than the level used in the related district court case. PO Resp. 6–8. Nevertheless, Patent Owner does not argue that the combinations of the teachings of the references are beyond the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. The level of skill in the art might be gleaned from the prior art itself. See Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A specific finding on the level of skill in the art is not . . . required where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”). Here, we find that the prior art adequately reflects an appropriate level of skill and that Patent Owner does not demonstrate a need for testimony or other evidence to establish the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Also, we find that, even though Dr. Goodrich suggests a level of skill higher than the level used in the related district court case, Patent Owner does not show sufficiently that any such difference in level of skill is material to the obviousness analysis in this case.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,601,322 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,601,322
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00372 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Bace and Russinovich; claims 9 and 10 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed likelihood of observing a feature.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “We have considered the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, and we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 3–8 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. We determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9 and 10 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Michael T. Goodrich, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 28. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 18–19. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex 1029 ¶¶ 13–14; Ex. 2018, 78:2-23. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations E. Patent Owner filed a Motion for Observations on the cross examination of Dr. Michael T. Goodrich (Paper 47), to which Petitioner filed a Response (Paper 50). We have considered Patent Owner’s observations and Petitioner’s responses, and we have given Dr. Goodrich’s testimony the appropriate weight in making our determination in this case.” slip op. at 30

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

    “determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 9. Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 23–24; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 23–24; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’084 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 9 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. Claim 10 6. Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and recites “wherein determining a likelihood of observing a feature comprises determining a conditional probability of observing a first feature in the records of processes that access the operating system registry given an occurrence of a second feature in the records.” Ex. 1001, col. 23, ll. 8–12. Because claim 10 depends from claim 9, and Petitioner has not shown that claim 9 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich, we determine that Petitioner also has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 10 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. See supra Section II.B.5.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,448,084 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,448,084
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00378 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14 and 16–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Bace and Russinovich; claims 25 and 26 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed feature-likelihood limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “contends that this construction is necessary to clarify that the challenged claims require monitoring registry accesses because Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Michael T. Goodrich, testified during his deposition that the records “may be records that don’t have direct impact on the registry.” Id. at 7–8. Even if Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Goodrich’s deposition testimony is accurate, Petitioner does not argue in the Petition or the Reply that the challenged claims do not require monitoring registry accesses. See Pet. 13–15, 21–32; Pet. Reply 1, 3–8. As such, there does not appear to be a dispute that requires claim construction. 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.”). Nonetheless, in order to avoid any ambiguity, we provide an express construction of the phrase “records regarding processes that access the operating system registry.” We determine that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction. The written description of the ’084 patent consistently indicates that records of processes are obtained by monitoring accesses to the operating system registry. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 6–18, col. 8, ll. 9–10, col. 8, ll. 22–24, col. 13, ll. 28–31, col. 13, ll. 46–52. In addition, Petitioner acknowledges that the challenged claims require monitoring accesses to the operating system registry. Tr. 12:15–13:3. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, however, omits the claim terms “processes” and “operating system,” which are part of the phrase being construed. Ex. 1001, col. 23, ll. 32–34. Therefore, we modify Patent Owner’s proposed construction to include those terms. Specifically, we construe the phrase “records regarding processes that access the operating system registry” to mean “records regarding processes obtained by monitoring accesses to the operating system registry.”1” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelOther

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 28. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 9–10. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex 1029 ¶¶ 7–8; Ex. 2018, 78:2-23. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case. Patent Owner argues that, even if Petitioner correctly defines the level” slip op. at 9

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

    “90–93, 128, 139 (pp. 68–69); Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 9–10. Therefore, the teachings of Bace, together with the background knowledge and perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have made it obvious to use records obtained by monitoring registry accesses as an information source for an anomaly detection system. See Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362– 63 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 13

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

    “Thus, Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 25. Pet. 41–42; Pet. Reply 23–24; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 41–42; Pet. Reply 23–24; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’084 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,448,084 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,448,084
• Universal Remote Control, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2015 · IPR2014-01104 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 9, 10, 14, and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Ciarcia and Hastreiter; unpatentability of claims 16 and 17 was not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “In any event, and even assuming that URC and Ohsung share an employee, we do not agree with Patent Owner that such a sharing of one employee (Mr. You) suggests that Ohsung exercised or could have exercised control over Petitioner’s participation in the proceeding. For instance, Mr. You is said to have been a director of engineering for Petitioner. Id. at 36– 37. Patent Owner has not shown that Mr. You was in a position within Ohsung to persuade Ohsung and/or Petitioner to make a litigation decision to pursue an inter partes proceeding. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that because URC previously paid for office space which an Ohsung employee (Mr. You) used, this suggests that Ohsung has reciprocated by paying for anything associated with the proceedings or controlled the proceeding in any other way. Id. If anything, the evidence tends to show that URC pays for expenses, such as the costs associated with these proceedings, not Ohsung. We also have considered Patent Owner’s argument that Ohsung’s and URC’s close relationship is exemplified by a settlement and license agreement (Ex. 2050, “agreement”) between Patent Owner and Petitioner, a provision of which obligates Ohsung to pay royalties to Patent Owner. PO Resp. 38. Patent Owner argues that the agreement strongly suggests that Ohsung may have had the opportunity to control, direct, and/or influence the present proceeding. Id. at 38–39. The agreement was executed in 2004. The royalties that Patent Owner mentions were paid out in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Patent Owner has not shown how the agreement exemplifies a close relationship in 2014 when the petition in this proceeding was filed. Moreover, the agreement and royalties are directed to a set of patents, none of which is the patent involved in this proceeding. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this argument. Lastly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that because URC and Ohsung share litigation counsel in the related case, that that tends to show that Ohsung has controlled, or had the opportunity to control, this proceeding. In summary, and based on the totality of arguments and evidence presented, we are not persuaded that Ohsung is a real party-ininterest on behalf of Petitioner.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner proffers constructions for several means-plus-function terms (Pet. 14–20), and Patent Owner weighs in on those constructions (PO Resp. 5–22). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine that those terms do not require express construction. Patent Owner also contends that Petitioner’s failure to propose a construction for “IR lamp driver means,” “receiving means,” “decoding means,” “first connector means,” and “interface connector means” in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is fatal to the Petition. PO Resp. 2–3. We agree with Petitioner, however, that these “means” are part of means-plus-function limitations which Petitioner did construe. PO Resp. 11. For this Final Written Decision, we determine that only the terms “code data” and “instruction codes” require express construction.” slip op. at 9

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

    “None of the challenged claims define or further explain what “code data” means. For example, there is nothing in claim 1 that would lead us to believe that data, albeit code data, should be construed to mean data plus programming or executable computer instructions. The phrase is “code data.” Moreover, the challenged claims distinguish between instruction codes and code data by claiming them both as separate elements. Based on the plain words of the challenged claims, code data and instruction codes are Petitioner’s arguments advanced during trial hearing that were not raised prior to the trial hearing. To do otherwise would be prejudicial to Patent Owner. 6 In its Reply brief, and during hearing, Petitioner argued that the claim 1 “instruction codes” are synonymous to the “instructions” that Patent Owner argues is part of “code data.” Pet. Reply 4, 7–8; Tr. 18. Patent Owner had ample opportunity to explain, during hearing, that “instruction codes” are different from “instructions” that it argues is part of “code data,” but did not do so. Tr. 38. not the same thing. Yet, Patent Owner’s claim construction would effectively rewrite the language to remove, for example with respect to claim 1, the “at least one of . . . or” language. For example, claim 1 covers choosing both instruction codes and code data, but under Patent Owner’s construction such scenario would make little sense because code data would also include instruction codes or instructions.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “From the above, Mr. Gafford acknowledges that Ciarcia’s menus do not necessarily include instructions, only that they can include instructions. Moreover, Mr. Gafford’s testimony that a well-known method of defining a menu was to write a program expressed in the form of instructions does not mean that the menus defined in the Ciarcia reference included such instructions. We give Mr. Gafford’s testimony little if any weight that defining menus to include instructions was a mere design choice and well known at the time of the invention, because the underlying evidence in support of that assertion has not been shown to be relevant at the time of the invention. In particular, the content of a current Wikipedia webpage to which we are directed has not been shown to be relevant to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known at the time of the invention, which was over twenty years ago.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 5,414,761 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,414,761
• Parrot S.A. / Parrot, Inc. v. Drone Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 20, 2015 · IPR2014-00730 · APJ Howard B Blankenship · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–14 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 5, 10–14 anticipated by Smith; claims 6–7 and 8–9 obvious over Smith with Barr and Fouche, respectively. Claims 4 and 15 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “construe “difference of motion” in claim 4 as relative motion. Pet. Reply 5– 6. Petitioner in its Reply does not, however, provide a persuasive explanation with respect to how the signal sent by the remote controller in Smith, or its “target motion signal” in the terms of claim 4, may contribute to getting the relative motion between the remote controller and the remotecontrolled device.2 Petitioner submits that “[i]t bears noting, moreover, that the ‘target motion signal’ (STAR3) of Fig. 5 of the ’071 Patent, also is a combination of the remote-controller’s measured orientation and the angle of the joystick, just as in Smith. Ex. 1001, 6:39-51. In that embodiment, it is ‘STAR3’ that is used to calculate the ‘difference of motion.’” Pet. Reply. 7. Petitioner refers to no evidence of record, however, to establish that this “third operation mode” described by the ’071 patent necessarily sends, as in Smith, a target motion signal that is the summation of the terrestrial magnetism signal and the orientation of the joystick relative to the remote 2 Although we did not institute trial on the alternative ground that claim 4 would have been obvious over Smith and Fouche (or the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art) (Pet. 29), the alternative ground for obviousness would suffer from the same deficiency as the anticipation ground. controller. Although attorney arguments are helpful when directing us to evidence in the record, the arguments themselves do not constitute evidence. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See, e.g., Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 4 is unpatentable as anticipated by Smith.” slip op. at 17

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

    “The ’071 patent, thus, makes clear that, in the preferred embodiment of the invention, “detecting” the remote controller’s motion is detecting the change in terrestrial magnetism relative to the horizontal ground surface as the controller is moved or rotated, with the resulting terrestrial magnetism sensing signal SG changing accordingly. The “terrestrial magnetism” of the Earth “directs to a fixed direction parallel to the horizontal ground surface.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 63–65. Detecting the orientation of a remote controller with respect to magnetic North is, at the least, within the scope of “detect[ing] the remote controller’s motion” as claimed. “A claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment ‘is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.’” Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “in orientation.” Pet. 17. As Petitioner indicates (id.), the ’071 patent does not provide a definition of the relevant terms different from the ordinary meaning of the words. At the preliminary proceeding stage, we interpreted “difference of motion” simply to mean, under the required broadest reasonable interpretation, relative motion. Dec. on Inst. 10. That interpretation is consistent with the language of claim 4. Claim 4 recites that the “calculated result” — the calculated current motion of the remote-controlled device — is compared with the target motion signal to get the “difference of motion” (relative motion) between the remote-controlled device and the remote controller. In relation to Petitioner’s proffered interpretation, because a change in orientation is a type of motion, relative orientation would be a type (or species) of “difference of motion.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “Thus, “detecting” the remote controller’s motion is detecting the change in terrestrial magnetism relative to the horizontal ground surface as the controller is moved or rotated, with the resulting terrestrial magnetism sensing signal SG changing accordingly. Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’071 patent of the remote controller storing a previous orientation for comparison with a present orientation to effect “detect[ing] the remote controller’s motion” as claimed. We, therefore, remain convinced that detecting the orientation of a remote controller with respect to magnetic North — which Patent Owner admits Smith to disclose — is, at the least, within the scope of “detect[ing] the remote controller’s motion” as claimed.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 7,584,071 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,584,071
• Apple Inc. / Google Inc. et al. v. Arrendi S.A.R.L.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00207 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 and 36–49 are unpatentable: some are anticipated by Domini, all are anticipated by Hachamovitch, and certain claims are obvious over Hachamovitch.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “marking . . . the first information to alert the user” The claim phrase “marking without user intervention the first information to alert the user” appears in independent claims 1 and 7. In the Decision to Institute, we preliminarily construed “marking without user intervention the first information to alert the user” to mean that the first information is detected and has some form of marking applied to it without user intervention claim. Dec. 7–8. We also determined that “marking” included the acts of highlighting, designating, or displaying the information in a separate screen or window to draw a user’s attention. Id. The parties do not dispute this preliminary construction. Based on the record before us, we determine that “marking” includes highlighting, designating, or displaying the information in a separate screen or window to draw a user’s attention.” slip op. at 6

  • 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 argument that a “pre-existing” relationship is required for “second information associated with the first information from a second application program.” The ’854 specification refers to related information that may match the searched data or data that corresponds to part of a typed name. Ex. 1001, 3:63–67, 4:43–58. Indeed, the ’854 patent written description states that there may be “more than one possible contact/address match” to the first information and that “the program displays menu choices to the user to let him choose an appropriate answer” to insert. Ex. 1001, 4:46–49 (emphasis added). Thus, Patent Owner has not demonstrated that a pre-existing relationship is described in the ’854 specification. Patent Owner’s arguments limiting the term “associated” to the examples in the ’854 specification referring to databases also is not commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claims or the broadest reasonable interpretation. 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. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (stating that “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification”). In the present case, Patent Owner has not shown persuasively that a person of ordinary skill would have understood the “second information associated with the first information from a second application program” as being limited to a “pre-existing relationship” between two pieces of information based on the claims, embodiments, and examples in the ’854 specification. To the contrary, the ’854 specification describes that a program operation based on a name or initials (the first information) could return more than one possible matching second information for insertion. Ex. 1001, 4:43–58. In sum, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, we do not find that “associated” as recited in “second information associated with the first information from a second application program” is limited to a pre-existing relationship. We determine that “associated” is construed as “connected or related” and that that “second information associated with the first information from a second application program” includes second information that is related to or connected with the first information from a second application program.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Based on the record, we are not persuaded the Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the searching steps of claims 3, 9, 38, and 45, occur in response to a user selection. Dependent claims 3, 9, 38, and 45, and the claims that depend therefrom, provide additional limitations on the insertion step that takes place in response to a user’s selection. The evidence cited by Petitioner refers only to insertion of the already retrieved suggestions. See Pet. 31–36 (claim chart showing claims 3, 9 and 38 and applying same analysis to claim 45). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 3–5, 9–11, 38, 40, 41, and 45 are anticipated by Domini. d. Conclusion Based on the complete record and the evidence and argument presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Domini anticipates claims 1, 2, 6–8, 12, 36, 37, 42–44, and 49. Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Domini anticipates claims 3–5, 9– 11, 38, 40, 41, and 45.” slip op. at 15

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

    “1. Hachamovitch (Ex. 1008) Hachamovitch discloses a word completion utility that automatically predicts word completion for data entry in a data file, such as a word processor or email application. Ex. 1008, 4:10–13. The word completion system is used in conjunction with an individual application program or operates independently across multiple application programs. Id. at 4:21–25. The user’s partially typed word is compared to the name-completion pairs and if a match is found within the list a suggestion list will be presented to a user. Id. at 4:58–5:6. A suggested word is presented to the user in a pop-up user interface within a word processing application as shown in Figs. 2A and 2B below. Figure 2A illustrates a word completion suggestion where the name completion pair is tied to a date or system parameter. Id. at 10:18-21; 10: 57-61. Figure 2B illustrates a word completion suggestion where the name-completion pair is tied to predefined properties, such as an initial capitalized letter. Id. at 11: 4-14. Once a word completion is displayed, the user may accept the word completion using an acceptance keystroke (e.g. tab or enter). Once accepted, the word completion utility replaces the partial data entry with the completion entry in the data file. Id. at 5:7-10; 7:4-5.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,496,854 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,496,854

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.