- Entain Corporate Services Ltd. / Betmgm, LLC et al. v. Beteiro, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00092 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 and 16–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed location information in a bet message or a sufficient reason to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering or equivalent, and at least two years of experience in the design and development of video game-related hardware and software.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–44). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. We find that the ’920 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’920 patent is consistent with the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the definition we adopted in our Decision to Institute. See Inst. Dec. 10–11.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We find no claim term requires express construction, because, for the reasons provided below, resolving the Parties’ patentability dispute in this case does not require construing any claim language. 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 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“information of the user telephone equipment to verify that the user is located in a geographic area where wagering is legal,” but Petitioner acknowledges that “Garahi does not specify exactly how or when this verification [that the user is located in a geographic area where wagering is legal] occurs or whether the location information is transmitted to the TPSMS with the wagering data.” Id. at 40. Notwithstanding Petitioner’s suggestion that there is ambiguity as to whether Garahi may include position or location information in its “wagering data,” the evidence advanced by Petitioner is unequivocal on this point. When asked whether Garahi, alone, discloses a bet message that contains position or location information, Mr. Kitchen testified on behalf of Petitioner that “Garahi certainly doesn’t.” Ex. 2001, 140:19–141:8; see also Pet. Reply 18 (stating that Mr. Kitchen testified “only that ‘Garahi certainly doesn’t’ disclose the transmission of location information with a bet”) (citing Ex. 2001, 139:12–141:5); Ex. 2001, 124:3–7 (Mr. Kitchen confirming that Garahi does not disclose everything in “element 1(c)(iii)”). Petitioner, accordingly, relies on McNutt, in combination with Garahi, and asserts that “it would have been obvious” to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have configured “Garahi to include the user communication device’s location information in the wagering data (i.e., the bet message) as provides no persuasive evidence that McNutt teaches including “location information” in “wagering data” that corresponds to a “bet message.” To the contrary, Mr. Kitchen testified that “McNutt does not disclose a bet message,” and therefore, does not, alone, teach including location information in the wagering data as a part of a bet message. Instead, as Mr. Kitchen explains, Petitioner’s argument is premised on combining “location which is obtained by McNutt at the institution of the bet” with the wagering data transmitted by Garahi. See Ex. 2001, 136:8–24.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“combination in regard to the bet message limitation, and we recognize that asserted prior art must not be considered in isolation, but for all that it teaches in the asserted combination, missing from Petitioner’s contentions is any persuasive evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to include position or location information based on McNutt in the wagering data of Garahi that Petitioner contends corresponds to a “bet message.” There is no persuasive evidence that the mere fact that McNutt teaches that location information may be obtained “when the user initiates the wager” would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to have taught or suggested including that location information with the wagering data of Garahi in a single “bet message,” as required by the Challenged Claims. To the contrary both Garahi and McNutt describe systems that first determine whether a bet may be placed from a location before allowing a user to transmit wagering data corresponding to “information regarding a bet to be place.” See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 50; Ex. 1006 ¶ 111, Fig. 12; Ex. 2001, 135:3–25, 137:11–22 (Mr. Kitchen testifying that in McNutt, the location information is obtained at the creation of the bet, i.e., when the user initiates the wager creation process, and allows or prevents access to the gambling apparatus). Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan would have done so to have been able to “discern the legality of a placed bet as McNutt discloses if a user of Garahi’s system moves to a wager-prohibitive location.” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Pet. 40–41; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 173, 175, 176; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 111, persuasively identify any “deficiency in Garahi which McNutt purportedly solves, inasmuch as Garahi already discloses obtaining location information” and using that information to discern the legality of a placed bet at the user’s location. PO Resp. 44; Ex. 1004 ¶ 50. Petitioner has not provided any further benefit to be obtained by adding location information into Garahi’s bet message having wagering data. Petitioner has not shown a sufficient reason supported by a preponderance of the evidence to modify Garahi based on the teachings of McNutt, outside of hindsight based on the disclosures of the ’920 patent, which, itself, explains that a determination of whether a bet is allowed or disallowed is based on the position or location of the user communication device having been transmitted as part of a bet message with information regarding a bet to be placed. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 59:16–47, 94:53–95:5. In sum, we find that a preponderance of the evidence fails to show that Garahi and McNutt, in combination with Stadelmann, teaches or suggests including position or location information in a bet message, as required by the Challenged Claims. To the extent that Garahi teaches transmitting a message with wagering data, and McNutt teaches that location information may be obtained “when the user initiates the wager,” Petitioner has shown no persuasive reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to include the location information of McNutt with the wagering data of Garahi in a single bet message, as required by the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 9,965,920 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,965,920 - Entain Corporate Services Ltd. / Betmgm, LLC et al. v. Beteiro, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00095 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 and 16–20 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish the asserted obviousness combinations or adequate reasons to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner asserts that “the phrase ‘initiates a communication link’ should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which includes a construction of ‘initiates’ to mean simply: ‘to cause a process or action to begin.’” PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner disagrees with the construction provided by Petitioner “which would suggest ‘initiates a communication link’ is satisfied by the mere joining of a communication network.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001, 115:15–23).” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA,” “PHOSITA,” or “skilled artisan”) “would be a person having a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering or equivalent, and at least two years of experience in the design and development of video game-related hardware and software.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 45–46). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. We find that the ’755 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’755 patent is consistent with the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the definition we adopted in our Decision to Institute. See Inst. Dec. 15.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“To the extent Petitioner argues it would have been obvious to modify Garahi’s system to initiate a communication link (Pet. 19–20; Pet. Reply 9), Petitioner does not provide adequate evidence or reasoning to establish how or why a skilled artisan would have modified Garahi’s system to initiate a communication link and transmit the message to the user’s device. Although Mr. Kitchen testified that it was old and well known at the time of the ՚755 patent to initiate a communication link and that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success to configure Garahi’s system to do so, Mr. Kitchen does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to or would have benefited from such a modification of Garahi’s system. Mr. Kitchen testifies that “[h]aving the TPSMS establish the communication link would have been obvious because doing so would allow the sending of wagering information to a user.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 127. Yet, Garahi’s system already allows for the sending of wagering information to the user in posting the generated notification message to a “Message Board.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 89, 107, 110. The existence of a new message is indicated by a display icon 318 next to the option “Message Board” in interface 300 having multiple options. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 89, 107, 110, Figs. 3, 12, 13. In order to receive the message, the user must first access the Message Board by selecting the related option, after which the information is displayed to the user. Id. That it was well-known in the art to have initiated a communication link does not explain how or why a skilled artisan would have modified Garahi’s system that notifies a user of wagering information by posting on a message board to notify a user by initiating a communication link to the user. Simply because a skilled artisan could have modified Garahi’s system to incorporate initiating the communication link does not explain why they would have had reason to do so. See In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1382; Belden, 805 F.3d at 1073. Thus, the preponderance of evidence does not show that Garahi’s posting or transmitting race information to the user’s Message Board, alone or in combination with the well-known technique of initiating a communication link, would have made it obvious to have the claimed computer initiate a communication link with a first communication device in response to generating the notification message.” slip op. at 42
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to persuasively identify any “deficiency in Garahi which McNutt purportedly solves in as much as Garahi already discloses obtaining” and using the location of the user to discern the legality of a placed bet at the user’s location. PO Resp. 33; Ex. 1004 ¶ 50. Petitioner has not provided any further benefit to add location information into Garahi’s bet message having wagering data. Further, Petitioner has not shown a sufficient reason supported by a preponderance of the evidence to modify Garahi based on the teachings of McNutt outside of hindsight based on the disclosure of the ՚755 patent. The ՚755 patent specifically provides that transmitting “information regarding the position or location of the first communication device or second communication device” is for “determining whether the bet is allowed or disallowed using the position or location information.” Ex. 1001 code (57); see also id. at 7:8–15, 80:24–81–18, Fig. 20A (discussing a process for determining whether the bet is allowed based on the user’s location). To the extent that Garahi teaches transmitting a message with wagering data, and that McNutt teaches location information may be obtained “when the user initiates the wager,” Petitioner has shown no persuasive reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to include the location information of McNutt with the wagering data of Garahi in a single bet message, as required by the Challenged Claims. 2. Conclusion for Alleged Obviousness over Garahi and McNutt Based on our review and consideration of Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, we find that based on the record, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the asserted combination of Garahi and McNutt teaches every limitation of claims 1, 2, and 18 and why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient reason to combine Garahi and McNutt, with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 48
Patent outcomesUS 10,255,755 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,255,755 - SNF S.A. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 18, 2024 · IPR2022-01534 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–25 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted ground because the evidence failed to establish the claimed filter ratio or support the proposed combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“In our Decision to Institute this proceeding, we adopted Dr. Barati’s proposed level of skill based on the prior art, the sophistication of the technology disclosed in the ’320 patent, and Dr. Barati’s opinion testimony. Dec. Inst. 17 (“we adopt Dr. Barati’s definition of the level of ordinary skill”). Patent Owner states it “does not dispute the level of skill applied by the Board in its institution decision.” PO Resp. 7. Accordingly, in this Decision, based on the evidence and the arguments of the parties, we maintain and adopt the level of ordinary skill stated in the Decision to Institute. In this proceeding, a person of ordinary skill would have had a Ph.D. in Chemical or Petroleum Engineering (or related science or engineering discipline) with 2-3 years of experience in the design and implementation of methods for hydrocarbon recovery including use of polymer compositions in such recovery methods. Alternatively, a person of ordinary skill might substitute several years of actual design or implementation experience for the advanced degree. See Ex. 1012 ¶ 18.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Claims must be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citations omitted)). We determine that a specific construction of the claims is not necessary to reach a decision in this inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable
“To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. [Citations omitted.] If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the 17 Again, to avoid confusion, this citation format is to page 15 of Exhibit C, which is an attachment to Exhibit 1012 in this proceeding. questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient. Id. at 1260 (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981)).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner fails to provide any persuasive evidence or argument that claims 1, 2, 13–15, and 20–25 would have been obvious in view of Li. As discussed above, anticipation and obviousness are different grounds, requiring different analyses, and different evidence. Petitioner fails to establish what modifications in Li would have been obvious and why it would have been obvious to make the modifications with a reasonable expectation of success. The word “obvious” appears in Ground 1 only in the analysis of claim 24, clause D, on page 37 of the Petition, where Petitioner merely states the conclusion that this clause “would be obvious” [sic, the statute requires a temporal component to establish the claim “would have been obvious”]. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to provide the requisite evidence and arguments that claims 1, 2, 13–15, and 20–25 would have been obvious in view of Li.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,626,320 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,626,320 - PTAB · Apr 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00029 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3–5, 7–8, 10–14, and 16–25 on all grounds in the Petition, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“It is not disputed that Sim, Doi, and Herz were not previously presented to the Office. And, the prosecution record indicates that Sim and Doi were not listed on an Information Disclosure Statement by Application nor in a List of References or in an Office Action by the Examiner. See Ex. 1002, 9–10, 20–25, 69–74, 196–197, 346–347. Petitioner’s asserted Grounds 1 and 2 rely substantially on Sim and Doi to teach the steps of the claimed system and method. Petitioner’s asserted Grounds 4, 5, and 6 substantially rely on Herz. Sim, Doi, and Herz are meaningful to the prior art combinations set forth in the Petition. Therefore, the asserted combinations regarding Sim and Doi, Sim, Doi, and Waytena, and Waytena and Herz were not previously presented to the Office. It is also not disputed that Waytena was previously presented to the Office and considered by the Examiner. The prosecution history shows that throughout prosecution, the Examiner heavily considered and relied on Waytena for rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 in evaluating the application of the ՚983 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 9–10, 20–24, 69–73. At this point and based on the present record, we do not discretionarily deny under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because Petitioner has 7 The terms “POSITA,” “PHOSITA” or “skilled artisan” refer to a person of ordinary sill in the art. reasonable likelihood that at least one of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. PGS Geophysical, 891 F.3d at 1360. However, based on the record before us, and because we reach the same conclusion as the Examiner regarding Waytena’s teachings, we find that Patent Owner has, on this record, sufficient support for its contentions that Waytena was previously presented to the Office and the Examiner’s evaluation on the merits regarding Waytena’s teachings was not in error.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Moreover, a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023) (“When instituting . . . review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). The Board determines whether to institute a trial on behalf of the Director. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that, at this stage based on the evidence presented, Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims and on all grounds asserted in the Petition. PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (stating that” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest or comment on Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art or offer Patent Owner’s own definition of the level of ordinary skill. Prelim. Resp. 2. that the ’983 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’983 patent is consistent with the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends the claimed “presentation means” is a means-plus- function term under § 112, ¶ 6, that “can perform the function of (a) ‘receiv[ing] said itinerary from said computer’ and (b) ‘present[ing] said itinerary to said party.’” Pet. 8–9. Petitioner further contends the corresponding structure for performing the recited functions is display screen 130. Pet. 9. Patent Owner presents no argument against this contention. We agree that “presentation means” is a means-plus-function claim term. Because it is necessary to know what the structure and function are encompassed by the claim term in order to make a determination that the disagreement, we adopt Petitioner’s construction. Should either party believe that a different construction should apply in the instituted trial, it should explain the proposed construction, how the construction is supported by the record, and how the construction affects our unpatentability analysis.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,212,983 - Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Mar 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Rehearing
Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted IPR of claims 1–4 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on the preliminary construction of “transaction data.”
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“institute has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the 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 in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Although the ’286 patent distinguishes “account data” from “transaction data” in the embodiment of Figure 11, the “transaction data” is submitted by the user to perform a series of banking transactions after manually entering a PIN code, whereas the “account data” is stored on the server, and the token information is accepted from the smart card’s embedded token, i.e., the output interface of the transaction card. See Ex. 1001, 10:12–18, 10:30–35, 10:40–42, 11:21–22, 11:65–12:4, 12:22–36. Thus, the claimed “transaction data” that is “accepted . . . from an output interface of a transaction card” and “accepted . . . from a transaction card at an input interface of the card reader,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, comprises data stored on and read from a card, such as an ID number, password, authentication information, or session information, that can be used to facilitate a transaction. Such claimed “transaction data” is distinct from the “transaction data” described in connection with the Figure 11 embodiment. We therefore do not limit the claimed “transaction data” and instead preliminarily construe that term as encompassing any data involved in a transaction, including account data. As described above, the claimed transaction data must come from the output interface of a transaction card. Should either party believe that a different construction should apply in the instituted trial, it should explain the proposed construction, how the construction is supported by the record, and how the construction affects our unpatentability analysis.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateInstituted
“The dispute relates to whether the ’030 application describes the claimed “smart telephone” accepting transaction data and executing coded instructions to convert the analog signal to digital data representing transaction data as digital data. See Pet. 14–15, 19–27. In Petitioner’s view, that term is supported only by language added to the “Brief Summary of the Invention” during prosecution of the application resulting in the ’286 patent. Id. at 17. In contrast, argues Petitioner, the corresponding section of the ’030 application instead describes transmitting sound to a PC, not a smart telephone. Id. at 19–26. Patent Owner submits that the ’030 application describes generating sounds from a smart phone and using a “key jack sound pass generator” to communicate sounds. Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner contends that the claim language is supported by disclosure of receiving the audio signal at a microphone port and converting the signal to transaction data. Id. at 16–18. Patent Owner points also to description of direct communication between a “client device” and server. Id. at 19. On the present record, we find that Petitioner, at this stage in the proceeding, has shown sufficiently how it contends that the earliest possible effective filing date for claims 1–4 of the ’286 patent is March, 3, 2015, such that the Cho, Aaron, Carpenter, and de Geer references qualify as prior art. Patent Owner has identified a factual dispute regarding the significance of the ’030 application’s disclosures, and we view that dispute as best resolved through trial.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) provides that one of the “Requirements of Petition” is that “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” “Whether a non-party is a RPI is a ‘highly fact-dependent question’ and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.” SharkNinja Operating LLC. v. IROBOT Corp., No. IPR2020-00735, 2020 WL 6050687, at *4 (PTAB Oct. 13, 2020) (precedential) (citing Ventex Co. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (Paper 148) (precedential) (citing Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012))). Here, addressing whether TCH is an unnamed RPI would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315. There is no allegation or evidence that TCH is “barred or estopped from this proceeding or that Petitioner purposefully omitted [TCH] to gain some advantage.” SharkNinja at *4. Rather, Patent Owner argues that for “once again willfully fail[ing] to identify TCH as a real party in interest, . . . the Petition should be denied on that basis.” Prelim. Resp. 7. In other words, Patent Owner contends only that we deny institution because of “the alleged failure of a procedural requirement that can be corrected under our precedent.” SharkNinja at *4. We understand that” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,679,286 - Safe Haven Wildlife Removal And Property Management Experts LLC v. Meridian Wildlife Services LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01340 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 were obvious over the asserted combinations of Bird Barrier Video and the cited references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“D. Principles of Law A petition must show how the construed claims are unpatentable under the statutory grounds it identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim for a petition to be granted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations).9 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that “a POSA6 ‘would have had at least either (i) at least a bachelor’s degree in the study of wildlife management or wildlife ecology or (ii) two or more years of field experience trapping flying animals,’” quoting the definition of a POSA adopted by the Board at the” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“actions under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), namely that articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). In applying that standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Analysis Based on the current record, we agree with Patent Owner, that the Petition does not adequately explain why it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the species of flying vertebrate (as required by limitation 1a) and position the netting for capture based on the species of flying vertebrate (as required by limitation 1d). All of the references relied upon assume the species of flying vertebrate. Specifically, Bird Barrier Video assumes that the flying vertebrate is a bird. See generally, Ex. 1003; see also Ex. 1004. Albanese and Sheldon (which specifically applies to American woodcocks) also assume that the flying vertebrate is a bird. See generally, Ex. 1010, see also Ex. 1011. Kunz assumes the flying vertebrate is a bat. See generally, Ex. 1009. Although, Kunz mentions birds, it does so in the context of setting its mist nets so as to not catch birds. Ex. 1009, 30. Thus, none of these references suggest that the method described therein pertains to a type of flying vertebrate other than the type of flying vertebrate described. In the absence of any explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would need to determine the species of flying vertebrate, Petitioner’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill “would be motivated to combine [Kunz, Albanese, and Sheldon] with the teachings of Bird Barrier Video to increase the chances of capturing a targeted bird within a large building” lacks rationale underpinning. Pet. 27. We also determine that Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to replace Bird Barrier Video’s magnetic connectors with hooks as required by limitation 1ci. Ex. 1001, 6:1. Petitioner contends that “using hooks instead of magnetic heads would have been obvious to a POSA as there is no material difference on the ends of poles to attach the poles to an overhead structure is commonly used in various fields. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1018, “Bebout”). Petitioner, however, does not explain how Bebout’s teachings would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify or replace Bird Barrier Video’s magnetic heads with hooks. See generally, Petition. Further, we do not agree with Petitioner’s assertion that there is no material difference between magnetic heads and hooks. For example, we understand that Bird Barrier Video’s magnetic head requires a magnetic surface, whereas hooks do not. Conversely, we understand hooks to require a structure that provides something for the hook to hook on to, whereas magnetic heads do not. Thus, it is not necessarily true that both a magnetic head and a hook have the same functionality such that a skilled artisan would find it obvious to replace one with the other.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,943,073 - Safe Haven Wildlife Removal And Property Management Experts LLC v. Meridian Wildlife Services LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01341 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 were obvious over the asserted combinations of Bird Barrier Video and the other references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“On the record before us, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing obviousness of claims 1–3 based on Bird Barrier Video and/or Kunz and/or Albanese and/or Sheldon. Because we deny institution on the merits, we do not address Patent Owner’s arguments that the proposed combination lacks particularity and that the Chamberlain Declaration is inadmissible. Prelim. Resp. 4–9, 29–33 (citing Ex. 2001; Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802; 37 C.F.R. § 42.62). IV. CONCLUSION Because we determine that the information presented in the record does not establish there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim of the ’663 patent, we do not institute an inter partes review” slip op. at 39
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that “a POSA10 ‘would have had at least either (i) at least a bachelor’s degree in the study of wildlife management or wildlife ecology or (ii) two or more years of field experience trapping flying animals,’” quoting the definition of a POSA adopted by the Board at the institution stage in IPR2022-01253. Pet. 22 (quoting Ex. 1014, 9). Patent Owner does not challenge this definition of the level of skill at this time. See generally Prelim. Resp.; Sur-Reply. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner argues that (a) Petitioner fails to sufficiently identify how the challenged claims are to be construed, and (b) “[t]he amendments and arguments made during prosecution of the ’663 patent reveal that the phrase ‘configured to raise the entire bird netting’ in Claim 1 [limitation b.iii] must be construed to require the capability to raise the entire bird netting to prevent the netting from blocking activities on the floor of the building it is used in.” Prelim. Resp. 9–15 (citing Ex. 1002, 21). As explained below in Section III.E.3, we find that, for reasons not related to limitation b.iii of claim 1, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of establishing that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Thus, we do not find it necessary to construe expressly any language of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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 15
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“3. Analysis Even assuming, arguendo, that the Bird Barrier Video teaches at least independent claim 1’s device that is “for repeated quick set up for safe live capture of a flying vertebrate indoors in a large building having a floor and a ceiling supported by rafters or beams” and comprises “bird netting capable of catching and holding the flying vertebrate when it flies into the bird underpinning demonstrating how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Bird Barrier Video to, at least, have a plurality of poles for sitting on the floor and a hook positioned at a top of each pole configured to attach the poles overhead to the ceiling by attachment over the top of a ceiling rafter and beam, as recited in claim 1’s limitations b and b.i. Regarding limitation b, Petitioner acknowledges that Bird Barrier Video does not disclose or suggest that its poles are “for sitting on the floor.” Pet. 24. Petitioner contends “it would be obvious to place them on the floor if needed to capture a bird in a lower location.” Id. Yet, the claim requires that the poles are for “sitting on the floor,” and not simply “to place” on the floor. Petitioner does not explain, nor does Bird Barrier Video show, the structure of Bird Barrier Video’s poles such that they can be “for sitting on the floor.” Moreover, Petitioner’s reasoning presumes that the net disclosed in the Bird Barrier video, which is suspended from the ceiling, would be incapable of capturing low-flying birds, yet the record does not support such a finding.” slip op. at 33
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,154,663 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Ak Meeting IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 5, 2024 · IPR2022-01142 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 8 are anticipated by and obvious over Roy; claims 1–14 are obvious over Simonoff and Naef; and the listed claims are anticipated by and obvious over Chang.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have been a person having, as of the priority date of the ’124 Patent: (1) at least an undergraduate degree in computer science or closely-related field, or similar advanced post-graduate education; and (2) 1–2 years of experience related to multi-user collaboration software. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30).10 Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response, but Patent Owner previously stated in its Preliminary Response that it “adopt[s] Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’124 Patent as well as the asserted prior art.” See generally Resp.; Prelim. Resp. 5. We accept Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’124 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[]” evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We conclude, in agreement with Petitioner, that Mr. Landers is not evidenced to have ordinary skill in the art, as such has been defined above in Section II.B of this Decision, because he appears to have neither the requisite education (he is not evidenced to have a degree in computer science or a closely related field) nor experience (he is not evidenced to have experience in multi-user collaboration software). See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 5–7, Attachment A; see also Hr’g Tr. 23:5–25:2 (Patent Owner, given the opportunity to identify any evidence of record supporting that Mr. Landers has ordinary skill in the art, identified none). There is no argument by Patent Owner to the contrary. For the reasons above, we give no weight to the testimony presented in the Declarations of Mr. Sunatori and Mr. Landers as to the claim construction, anticipation, and obviousness issues discussed below. D.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner states, “no construction is necessary, as the claims are obvious under any reasonable construction.” Pet. 7. This statement aligns with the testimony of Dr. Terveen. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24 (“Counsel has not instructed me to apply a construction of the claims notwithstanding their ordinary meaning. Therefore, I have applied the meaning of the claim terms of the Challenged Claims that is generally consistent with their ordinary and customary meaning, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood them in the context of the ’124 Patent at the time of the alleged invention.”). Moreover, Petitioner again stated at the final hearing that, “there are no claim construction disputes, at least none explicitly.” Hr’g Tr. 11:21–24. Similarly, Patent Owner states that “[n]o formal claim constructions are necessary because ‘claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Resp. 4 (quoting Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Therefore, we also do not expressly construe any claim language. slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based on the evidence of record, we find that the annotated Roy Figure 4B, above, shows how Roy teaches: (1) user input at a client computer, the user input representing content to be shared, such as game plays, and generating messages defining that content, (2) the content being sent to a server, (3) and the server then outputting related messages to all the networked client computers (including the originating computer) so that (4) shared content (e.g., the game play) is displayed over common content (e.g., a game field) at all networked computers (including the originating computer). The above cited portions of Roy, as explained by Dr. Terveen, disclose a central server architecture for the networking of, and sharing common and user-generated content amongst, client computers, and the inherent latency involved in transmission of messages over such an architecture. See Pet. 10–23; Ex. 1001, 1:60–67, 47:44–48, 49:2–7; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–60; Ex. 1005, Abstract, 1:26–48, 1:53–56, 2:1–6, 3:16–56, 3:66–4:1, 4:6–29, 4:44–54, 5:17–6:14, 7:50–52, Figs. 1, 4B, 5A, 5B; Ex. 1020; Ex. 1021. Moreover, to the extent any claim element is not expressly disclosed in Roy, Petitioner has shown that it would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that displaying shared content over common content on networked computers, where users are collaborating or playing a game, where changes are made to the common view efficiently so that only changes are messaged as rendering commands rather than re-rendering the entire “game world” would provide the benefit of preserving bandwidth consumption. Pet. 20–21; Ex. 1003 ¶ 58.” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 10,963,124 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,963,124 - Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–4 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314. That burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we find that the ’286 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’286 patent is consistent with the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“To the extent necessary, we discuss the meaning of a claim term (“transaction data”) in our analysis below. We, however, need not construe explicitly any of the claim terms proposed by Petitioner to reach our decision about institution. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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))). At this stage, neither party has identified any indication that the ’286 patent uses any term differently than it would ordinarily be used or any indication in the prosecution history that “compel[s] a limitation of the claim language different from its plain meaning” as alternatives. Schumer v. Lab. Comput. Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1311, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“To the extent Petitioner contends that Cho’s account information, though not explicitly providing for “transaction data,” “renders obvious” the claimed transaction data, Petitioner has not explained such a modification of Cho’s account information that would be necessary to arrive at the ’286 patent’s transaction data. Nor has Petitioner provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (C.A.Fed.2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S.at 418). Similarly, Petitioner does not explain how skilled artisans would have used Aaron to modify Cho’s system to meet the claimed transaction data. Rather, Petitioner relies on Aaron for teaching facilitating transactions. Pet. 57. Petitioner asserts that “Aaron explains what information is sent in transactions: ‘credit card numbers, debit card numbers, bank accounts, user accounts, user identifying information or other sensitive information.’” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 69). Yet, Petitioner does not explain how Aaron’s customer facing device that communicates with the payment service system 708 to submit a request for authorization of a transaction, the information being credit and debit card numbers, bank and user account information, and other identifying or sensitive information, would have been combined with Cho to render obvious accepting, providing, and converting transaction data—differentiated from account data—and facilitating transactions using that transaction data. Indeed, Petitioner’s contentions do not mention Aaron for limitation [1.1.1] (the initial recitation of transaction data) or for limitation [1.3.1] (where an audio signal is converted to transaction data). Pet. 40–43, 53–56. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,286 - PTAB · Oct 25, 2023 · IPR2023-00849 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 4, 7–12, 14, 17, 18, and 20–27, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“discretionary denial of institution. In particular, we determine that factor 1 is neutral, factors 2–4 weigh against denial of institution, and factor 5, which is the lone factor favoring denial of institution, does not outweigh factors 1–4. As a result, we need not decide whether Petitioner presents a compelling unpatentability challenge. See CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4–5 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (decision on Director review) (precedential) (“[I]n circumstances where the Board determines that the other Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial, the Board shall decline to discretionarily deny under Fintiv without reaching the compelling merits analysis.”). In addition, Petitioner asserts: (1) the Board is best suited to address the technical issues raised here; (2) a decision on the merits at institution may aid the parties in resolving their dispute; and (3) determining patentability will benefit the public, providing a complete record and rationale absent from a jury verdict form. Pet. 113. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s argument does nothing more than “proclaim[] in conclusory fashion that institution will result in some vague benefit to the [’492 litigation] and the public.” Prelim. Resp. 45. We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner’s assertion is conclusory and does not adequately specify the particular benefits to the proceeding here or to the ’492 litigation. Thus, we determine that the sixth factor is neutral.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“It is not disputed the Sclater was not previously presented to the Office. As can be seen from our analysis below, all of Petitioner’s asserted grounds substantially rely upon Sclater to teach limitations of the safety device. Sclater, thus, is meaningful to the prior art combination. because the asserted combination, all of which include Sclater, were not previously presented to the Office. Because we determine that part one of the framework is not satisfied, we need not turn to part two to determine whether Petitioner demonstrates that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. For the reasons discussed above, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 20
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“of record, for the reasons set forth below we determine that, at this stage based on the evidence presented, Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims and on all grounds asserted in the Petition. PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (stating that” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the invention (“POSA” or “skilled artisan”) “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of machine design experience related to power transmission equipment and a demonstrated understanding of the biomechanics of exercise, including knowledge in the field of anthropometry (i.e., the study of human proportion).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48, 44–49). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 2. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we find that the ’745 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,799,745
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.