- Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Carucel Investments, L.P.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 3, 2021 · IPR2019-01404 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 4–11, and 14–23 unpatentable based on its construction of “mobile device” and findings on combining CDMA and TDMA.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. A rehearing request is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or merely to express disagreement with the Final Written Decision. Nor is it an opportunity for the moving party to present new arguments that were not in its original submissions.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We disagree that we misapprehended or overlooked any matters in addressing Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “mobile device.” Rather, we provided a comprehensive analysis of the term “mobile device.” anything that was overlooked or misapprehended in this analysis, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Instead, Patent Owner merely expresses its disagreement with our conclusions and proceeds to reargue points and evidence already considered and rejected in the Final Written Decision. This approach is not proper in a rehearing request. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s own arguments show the error in its proposed construction. For example, Patent Owner argues that the recited “mobile device” “must register with and be able to directly communicate with the cellular network.” PO Resp. 13; Req. Reh’g 1 n.1. Yet, Patent Owner acknowledges that “the claims of the ’023 Patent require the apparatus/movable base station to communicate directly with the cellular network (and not the ‘mobile device’).” Req. Reh’g 3 (emphasis added). As we pointed out in the Final Decision, the only claimed communication involving the mobile device is between the claimed “apparatus” (the mobile base station) and the mobile device, and Patent Owner acknowledges that this communication need not be cellular. Final Dec. 14 (citing PO Sur-reply 9). Thus, Patent Owner’s arguments undermine its proposed construction.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundOther
“[t]he Board erred in finding that that ‘CDMA and TDMA are not incompatible’ by improperly disregarding substantial evidence set forth by Patent Owner and its expert—that undermines any expectation of success and would have discouraged a [person of ordinary skill in the art] from attempting Petitioner’s combinations.” Req. Reh’g 14 (citing Final Dec. 79). Patent Owner does not attempt to identify any specific errors in citing pages from Patent Owner’s written submissions and testimony from its declarant. Req. Reh’g 14 n.31. We disagree that we misapprehended or overlooked any matters in this regard. Rather, we considered Patent Owner’s submissions and disagreed with them, finding instead that the record demonstrated that CDMA and TDMA can be combined, and we relied on, among other evidence, a prior art reference that expressly discloses a combination of CDMA and TDMA. Final Dec. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1033), 79. We further found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make the proposed combinations and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Final Dec. 57–58, 79–81. slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,979,023 - PTAB · Sep 15, 2020 · IPR2020-00282 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Samsung’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“a party requests rehearing on a decision on whether to institute inter partes review, we “review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) (2019). There is an abuse of discretion if we have made “a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors or in basing [our] decision on an error of law or on clearly erroneous factual findings.” Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 851 F.3d 1302, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys., Inc., 150 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). In a request for rehearing, “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We disagree. Nowhere in the cited passages in the Petition does Samsung argue that we should construe the term “row wrap-around connections” according to the explicit construction that Samsung now suggests for the plain and ordinary meaning. See Pet. 10–11, 25–30. Rather, Samsung argued that “Petitioners do not believe any term requires explicit construction.” Pet. 10–11. In the Reply, Samsung argued that all of the terms in the challenged claims should be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning. See Reply 1, 4–5. However, apart from arguing that Samsung had proposed construing limitation 1C in the co-pending district court proceeding according to its plain and ordinary meaning,3 Samsung did not propose any specific construction for the phrase “row wrap-around connection,” or point to any evidence as to what the ordinary and customary meaning of that phrase was to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, we decline to adopt Samsung’s new proposed construction on rehearing.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We determined that Samsung had not provided sufficient evidence of its proposed motivation to combine the two references. See Dec. 16 (“[N]either Samsung nor Dr. Wolfe supports this conclusion with any evidence on the preliminary record.” (citing In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3))). In particular, we found that “Dr. Wolfe does not explain how or why the combination of Barkan and Tagg would minimize RC delay or allow for the use of lengthier columns and rows of electrodes, or cite to any facts, data, or authorities to support that opinion.” Dec. 17. We stated that “there is no evidence in the record suggesting that RC delay was a recognized problem . . . or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a connection to both sides of a row of electrodes would be a solution to that problem.” Id. We also stated that Dr. Wolfe does not “provide any detail as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Barkan’s leads 160 to incorporate external connections such as those in Tagg.” Id. (citing Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,821,502 - Solvay USA Inc. v. Worldsource Enterprises, LLC, Eco Agro Resources LLC, And Eco World Group LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 10, 2020 · PGR2019-00046 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · PGR · Rehearing
The Board held claims 1–20 unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations and denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request.
RulingsRehearing decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In light of the complete record now before us, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition to the academic requirements associated with obtaining a bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, Petitioner’s definition includes at least two years of experience specific to chemical formulations used in the agricultural industry. Pet. 8. Patent Owner’s “definition” is generic to “formulation chemistry.” Sur-Reply 4. Patent Owner does not explain, nor do we discern, why the skilled artisan would not have had at least some work experience in developing chemical formulations in the relevant field, i.e., the agrochemical industry. Indeed, some of Patent Owner’s arguments are directed to solvent delivery systems used in the agricultural market. PO Resp. 57–78.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“filing date, we apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Id. at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Neither party offers a construction for any claim term. Pet. 11; see also PO Resp., generally. On the complete record, we determine that no claim limitations need an express construction to resolve the controversy.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“analogous art. PO Resp. 47; Sur-Reply 8, 15–16. Patent Owner incorrectly frames the analogous art inquiry by comparing whether the prior art references are analogous to each other. See PO Resp. 47 (“not all three references are in the same field of endeavor”); Sur-Reply 16 (asserting that CN400 “is not analogous art with Iannotta [] and/or Kolc” because CN400’s NBPT is purportedly “not dissolved in any solvent”). Our reviewing court has stated, however, that “[a] reference qualifies as prior art for a determination under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court stated Two separate tests define the scope of analogous art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Innovention Toys, 637 F.3d at 1322. Regarding whether the CN400 patent is in the same field of endeavor as the ʼ108 patent, we must consider the scope of the ʼ108 patent as a whole and not just the claims. In re Mettke, 570 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (rejecting appellant’s attempt to rely on the claimed subject matter to define the relevant “field of endeavor” when the specification described a broader one). Significantly, the ʼ108 patent discloses both solutions and suspensions of NBPT. See Ex. 1001, 5:20–52, 6:5–12, 6:39–40 (disclosing various solutions of NBPT), and 13:24–36 (setting forth an embodiment that formed “a suspension of NBPT in the aqueous mixture” that may “be solved by agitation”). Therefore, regardless of whether CN400’s process set forth in its claim 1 results in a solution or suspension of NBPT, CN400 is from the same field of endeavor as defined by the ʼ108 patent itself––“solvent formulations for the urease inhibitor . . . NBPT.” Ex. 1001, 1:15–18. Even if CN400 was not in the same field of endeavor as the ʼ108 patent, we find it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. The ʼ108 patent identifies NBPT formulation toxicity as problematic to the environment, animals, and possibly humans (id. at 2:60–62, 4:8–33), and expressly states “it is desirable to develop formulations/fertilizers that are less toxic to the environment and to animals and humans” (id. at 4:34–36). The skilled artisan would have been aware of this toxicity problem with NBPT-containing formulations (Ex. 1025, 1; Ex. 1007 ¶ 6), and CN400 was also concerned with this problem (Ex. 1006, 1 (Abstract), ¶¶ 2, 5; see also Ex. 2006, 461 (machine translation of CN400 abstract noting how use of its fertilizer formulation will not pollute the environment), 462 ¶ 2, 463 ¶ 5. Notably, Patent Owner does not address this second test in its briefing. Tr. 39:6–11 (Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledging “[w]e did not address the other prong in the briefing”). Thus, on several bases, we find CN400 is analogous art to the ʼ108 patent and may be properly relied on in our obviousness determination.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,221,108 - Donner Technology, LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00707 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 5, 7, 8, 18, 20, and 21 not shown unpatentable on the challenged obviousness grounds.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construction of the phrase ‘above the surface,’ then the Board’s construction cannot be reasonably discerned.” Req. Reh’g 8. If that were the case, Petitioner contends we “must articulate and explain [our] construction for the purposes of judicial review.” Id. at 9. Yet Petitioner failed to explain in the Petition how the cited references teach the “above the surface” limitations of claims 5 and 18 under any construction of these limitations, including the one implied in footnote 8 of the Petition. See Pet. 55 n.8, 69 n.10. Petitioner did not specify any dispute regarding the meaning of the term “the surface” and neither did Patent Owner. See, e.g., id. at 8–9 (no terms proposed by Petitioner for construction), 55 (Petitioner’s analysis for claim 18 referring to earlier analysis relative to the “effect mounting surface”); Paper 26, 34–41, 43 (no arguments in Patent Owner’s Response based on an interpretation of “the surface”); Paper 34, 16–17 (Petitioner in its Reply referring to arguments in the Petition for “above the surface”). As such, we did not expressly construe “above the surface.” See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). In addition, Petitioner purports to construe “above the surface” for the first time. See Req. Reh’g 2, 7 (stating that the plain and ordinary meaning of “above the surface” is “above the ground” or “above the area to provide spacing for cables to run underneath the frame”). Petitioner could have, but did not, put forth such constructions in its Petition. See 37 C.F.R. ordinary meaning of “above the surface” in the Request for Rehearing (see Req. Reh’g 7), Petitioner’s arguments come too late. And Petitioner never previously attempted to associate the recited “surface” with “the ground” or “the area to provide spacing for cables to run underneath the frame.” Contrary to Petitioner’s new constructions, and as explained above, Petitioner previously associated the recited “surface” with “the effect mounting surface.” See Pet. 55 n.8 (“the ’023 Patent provides no support for the frame in Claim 15 being supported above the effect mounting surface in Claim 18” (bold emphasis added)), 69 n.10 (referring to footnote 8).” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“of the “above the surface” limitation was framed by its statement in the Petition that claims 5 and 18 are invalid “under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because the ’023 Patent provides no support for the frame . . . being supported above the effect mounting surface.” Pet. 55 n.8 (italics in original; bolding emphasis added), 69 n.10 (referring to footnote 8); see also Final Dec. 51 n.12 (quoting same). Thus, Petitioner associated the “surface” in the recitation “above the surface” with the “effect mounting surface” recited in base claims 2 and 15. Despite this association, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis made no attempt to show that Arseneault’s higher backwall (i.e., the “frame base,” see Pet. 51–53, 55–56) supports SCC-700’s cross members A–D (i.e., the “frame,” see id. at 50) above the units board of SCC-700 (i.e., the “effects mounting surface,” see Pet. 46–47).1 Rather, Petitioner addressed only the “frame base supporting the frame” and “allowing the cable to pass beneath the frame” limitations of claims 5 and 18. See Pet. 54–55, 69–70. Thus, we determined that Petitioner’s analysis “d[id] not establish that Arseneault teaches ‘a frame base supporting the 1 As we acknowledged, Petitioner’s analysis for claim 18 builds upon its anticipation analysis for claim 15 and its analysis for the recited “frame” in claim 1. See Final Dec. 51–52.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“3 We also considered Petitioner’s argument from its Reply that an ordinarily skilled artisan “could have easily made a rigid connection between the cross members and end-members using the same fasteners that are disclosed in Carter.” Final Dec. 72 (citing Paper 34, 24; Ex. 1051 ¶ 26). We were not persuaded by this rationale because Petitioner did not provide a reason why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have made such a connection. See id. at 75. Petitioner does not contest this determination in its Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,459,023 - Polycom, Inc. v. Fullview, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 10, 2019 · IPR2019-00647 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Rehearing
Denied Polycom’s rehearing request; the Board found no abuse of discretion in denying institution because the cited art did not show the independent claims’ intersecting inner-volume limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We determined in the Decision that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable as anticipated by or obvious over the cited prior art references, particularly with respect to the claim requirement in the independent claims that a support member “intersect[] an inner volume” of reflective elements secured to a vertical support. Decision at 11–21. Petitioner’s Rehearing Request asserts that we misapprehended or overlooked the argument that dependent claims 3 and 12 would have been obvious over the combination of Yamazawa and Horn because our Decision addresses the failure of Yamazawa to disclose or suggest the support member intersecting an inner volume and does not address the arguments pertaining to Horn’s hollow shaft. Rehearing Request at 2–7. We did not overlook Petitioner’s arguments with respect to Horn and the modification of Yamazawa with Horn. See Decision at 20 (“Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazawa with Horn’s shaft because it would have been beneficial for the wires associated with the many cameras used by Yamazawa to be enclosed in a compact manner and avoid entanglement and damages to the wires.”). The problem with Petitioner’s argument in both the Petition and the Rehearing Request is that Horn was not relied upon for teaching the claim element of the support member intersecting an inner volume of reflective elements. Petitioner emphasizes that Horn teaches a single hollow shaft (Rehearing Request at 5–7); however, Petitioner does not direct us to any evidence that it would have been obvious to configure the hollow shaft of Horn such that it intersects an inner volume of the reflective elements of Yamazawa as required by the independent claims from which claims 3 and 12 depend.” slip op. at 2
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther
“Petitioner’s Rehearing Request makes new arguments not made in the Petition, specifically, that the difference between Iwerks and Herndon, which was distinguished during prosecution of the ’143 patent, is that Iwerks’ cylindrical support 14 does not merely contact the reflective element, but also intersects an inner volume of the reflective element. Rehearing Request at 14–15. Petitioner also relies on case law, such as In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) and Ex parte Weideman, Appeal 2008-003454 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2009), that was not cited or relied upon in its brief. Rehearing Request at 8–9. Further, in support of its Rehearing Request, Petitioner submits multiple enlarged and annotated Figures from Iwerks and Herndon, which were not previously before us as part of the Petition. We could not have misapprehended or overlooked arguments or evidence not before us. See 37 C.F.R. 42.71(d). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to supplement an initial filing and make arguments a party did not make earlier.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“new arguments and demonstrative evidence submitted by Petitioner, we determine that the portion of Iwerks’ yellow-colored support structure 14 does not “intersect” a volume formed by blue-colored reflective element 56 simply because it is allegedly “inside” element 56. As explained in our Decision, the term “support member intersecting an inner volume of a reflective [or pyramid shaped] element” recited in the ’143 patent claims is not satisfied by a support member making peripheral contact with a reflective or pyramid shaped element. Decision at 10. This disputed claim term was not defined in the Petition and, to the extent that Petitioner’s Rehearing Request seeks to construe “intersecting” to mean “inside,” Petitioner does not adequately explain why the term should be so broadly construed in light of the prosecution history of the ’143 patent.” slip op. at 4
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 6,128,143 - Delphi Technologies, LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 11, 2018 · IPR2017-00864 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–15, and 18–21 unpatentable because their scope did not require the buffer to store the specified information.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“party challenging the decision,” and, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). III. DISCUSSION Patent Owner’s Request does not identify any arguments that we “misapprehended or overlooked” let alone “specifically identify” all such matters. Thus, Patent Owner’s Request fails to comply with our rules. Despite this failure of Patent Owner’s Request, we address the substance of Patent Owner’s argument as follows.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“misapprehended any argument. Furthermore, we are unpersuaded that our Decision was in error regarding independent claims 1, 3, 7, 18, and 23 because these claims have a different scope than claims 17, 22, and 24. As Patent Owner correctly noted, our construction of “dedicated USB connection” is “a USB connection that may include some shared physical communication path and includes a buffer for maintaining dedicated address, configuration and response information for the connection.” Dec. 33. Thus, a dedicated USB connection must include a buffer that is capable of storing/maintaining “dedicated address, configuration and response information” regardless of whether such data is actually stored/maintained therein.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,523,243 - RPX Corporation v. Spycurity LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2018 · IPR2018-00304 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied RPX’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution because the Petition lacked a reasoned basis to substitute Dial-Up for Crawford’s call-back connection.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters that were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); The Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Why the Petition Failed The Decision found that Petitioner’s combination failed due to the “absence of articulated, rational reasoning to support the substitution of the Dial-Up method of connection for the ‘call back’ described in Crawford.” Decision 14. In other words, the Decision found that Petitioner failed to provide a sufficient rationale for substituting the Dial-Up connection for the conventional, point-to-point modem connection described in the Crawford embodiment that used the ring pattern to cause the user system to call the backup system. That problem remains, as the Request for Rehearing does not address the issue. The combination thus fails before one reaches the question of where in the combination a connection to the Internet might be found. This alone is a sufficient reason to deny the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Why the Petition Failed The Decision found that Petitioner’s combination failed due to the “absence of articulated, rational reasoning to support the substitution of the Dial-Up method of connection for the ‘call back’ described in Crawford.” Decision 14. In other words, the Decision found that Petitioner failed to provide a sufficient rationale for substituting the Dial-Up connection for the conventional, point-to-point modem connection described in the Crawford embodiment that used the ring pattern to cause the user system to call the backup system. That problem remains, as the Request for Rehearing does not address the issue. The combination thus fails before one reaches the question of where in the combination a connection to the Internet might be found. This alone is a sufficient reason to deny the Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Claim Construction Petitioner’s argument that we construed the claims to “require[e] that the connection between the host system and the Internet itself be made via the Internet” (Req. Reh’g 2) is incorrect. Petitioner appears to confuse the fact that we found the claims satisfied by such an arrangement in the combination to mean that we required the claims to have that arrangement. Our Decision understood the Petition’s combination to contemplate Dial-Up IP being used to connect to the Internet and then to the backup service over the Internet (e.g., via relay.cs.net). See Decision 12. That understanding was drawn from the Petition, which states, for example, “Crawford, in view of Dial-Up IP, teaches creating a connection between the customer computer . . . and the Internet (through an ISP server) using a communication device . . . connected to the host system.” Petition 34 (emphasis added). Critically, however, the arrangement considered in the Decision included a “connection between the host system and the Internet,” as claimed, specifically an Internet link between the user and the backup system. Because we found the Internet connection claim language would be satisfied in the version of the combination we considered, Petitioner has no reasoned basis for complaining about the constructions.” slip op. at 4
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 5,809,118 - Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. v. Nomadix, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 22, 2018 · IPR2018-00376 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and upheld denial of institution on the Slemmer and Vu obviousness ground because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co.,, 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Notably, we must base our determination of a “reasonable likelihood” that Petitioner would “prevail” on “the information presented in the petition,” specifically. In the present case, Petitioner has not provided a basis, legal or otherwise, in support of its position that we must determine a “reasonable likelihood” based on information presented in some other petition, much less based on some other evidence of record in another proceeding. For example, in IPR2016-00077, the panel based its decision on a “Declaration by Mr. Keith Olsen.” That evidence is not of record in this proceeding.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“supporting Petitioner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the cited references. Req. Reh’g. 8–10. In particular, Petitioner reiterates previous arguments presented in the Petition such as “Vu is one of the first prior art references to teach the handshake” but that “other prior art references also teach it.” Req. Reh’g 9. These arguments were previously addressed. Decision 7–8. Although Petitioner may disagree with our resolution of the arguments that Petitioner presented in its Petition, such arguments were considered fully in our Decision.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“construction for the term ‘TCP connection hand shake completion data,’ which resulted in an incorrect determination.” Req. Reh’g. 5. In particular, Petitioner now proposes a broadest reasonable construction of the term “TCP connection hand shake completion data” to mean “two devices initiating a communication session by the first device sending information to a second device, and the second device then responding to the first device.” Req. Reh’g. 7. Based on this newly proposed construction of the term “TCP connection hand shake completion data,” Petitioner argues that Vu discloses this feature. Req. Reh’g. 6–8. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner must “identify all matters [Petitioner] believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” Petitioner did not present this proposed construction in the Petition. See generally Req. Reh’g.; see generally Pet. We could not have “misapprehended or overlooked” what was not presented.” slip op. at 4
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,266,266 - PTAB · Dec 6, 2017 · IPR2017-01098 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied T-Mobile’s rehearing requests, leaving in place the denial of institution for the challenged claims because it found no abuse of discretion in its preliminary construction.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We determined in our preliminary construction that the disclosed structure only supports the use of a single wireless network card. Dec. 12– 14. Although the district court cited column 31, lines 22–24 of the ’306 Patent in its analysis of the disclosed structure for the communication module limitation (Ex. 2001, 34), we determined that that portion of the ’306 Patent specification is not related to the identified function for the communication module limitation. Dec. 12–13.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelOther
“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.” Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted). Consistent with Okajima, the level of ordinary skill in this case is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Although both parties proposed definitions for the applicable level of ordinary skill in the art. (Pet. 12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–36; Prelim. Resp. 12), neither party specifically explained how any proposed level of ordinary skill in the art would impact the analysis presented. See Genzyme Therapeutic Products L.P. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Having considered the arguments with slip op. at 8
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,559,369 - PTAB · Dec 6, 2017 · IPR2017-01099 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied T-Mobile’s rehearing requests, finding no abuse of discretion in its preliminary construction of the communication module limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“may “deny some or all grounds for unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b). When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based 2 See IPR2017-01098, Papers 12, 14; IPR2017-01099, Papers 11 (“Institution Decision” or “Dec.”), 14 (“Req. Reh’g”). Unless otherwise specified, we refer to papers filed in IPR2017-01099 and, with respect to the specification of the patents, to U.S. Pat. No. 9,042,306 (Ex. 1002) (“the ’306 patent”). The written description of U.S. Pat. No. 8,559,369 (the “’369 patent”) is substantively identical. on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for patent owner
“We determined in our preliminary construction that the disclosed structure only supports the use of a single wireless network card. Dec. 12– 14. Although the district court cited column 31, lines 22–24 of the ’306 Patent in its analysis of the disclosed structure for the communication module limitation (Ex. 2001, 34), we determined that that portion of the ’306 Patent specification is not related to the identified function for the communication module limitation. Dec. 12–13.” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelOther
“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.” Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted). Consistent with Okajima, the level of ordinary skill in this case is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Although both parties proposed definitions for the applicable level of ordinary skill in the art. (Pet. 12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–36; Prelim. Resp. 12), neither party specifically explained how any proposed level of ordinary skill in the art would impact the analysis presented. See Genzyme Therapeutic Products L.P. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Having considered the arguments with 3 We dispute Petitioner’s characterization of what was “recognized” in our Institution Decision, which clearly notes that the functionality is disclosed in the ’306 Patent as being performed “using only a single wireless network card” and “using a single Wireless NIC.” Dec. 12, quoting ’306 Patent at 11:47-48, 24:28 (emphases in Dec.). respect to the level of ordinary skill, we do not find them persuasive that our preliminary construction was based on an erroneous conclusion of law, a factual finding was not supported by substantial evidence, or there was an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. slip op. at 8
Claim constructioncites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,042,306
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.