• ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00943 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9–13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 8 and 14 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that: On or before 7/12/2017, [one of ordinary skill in the art] would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, in electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately three years of experience or equivalent study in voice-controlled devices in smart home systems. Additional graduate education could 2 Neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to such objective evidence of nonobviousness. in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 18. We adopted this definition for the purposes of the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 8–9. Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 4. We again adopt Petitioner’s definition, which is consistent with the level of skill as reflected in the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Absent a recitation of order, or an order mandated by grammar or logic, the steps of a method claim are not construed to require a particular order. See, e.g., Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Patent Owner argues that the steps of claim 1, a method claim, must be performed in sequential order. PO Resp. 13–16. Without commenting on or conceding Patent Owner’s proposal, Petitioner contends that “the trial grounds meet this proposed construction.” Pet. Reply 24–25; Tr. 8:25–11:16. Our record does not reflect any indication that Patent Owner’s proposed construction requiring the sequential ordering of the method steps is not at least encompassed by the correct construction of claim 1. Because of this, and because Petitioner agrees that the arguments in the Petition meet this construction, we accept Patent Owner’s construction as correct for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s showing uses the same sound data to teach the “first sound data” of limitation 1.a and the “second sound data” of limitation 1.c. Patent Owner is correct that Rosenberg’s claim 5 describes the determination of a volume threshold based on the volume of the ambient audio signal in which characteristic form(s) (e.g., the name of the user of the media player) are present. Ex. 1006, 13:66–21, 14:28–30. However, the Petition describes using Fu’s “predetermined threshold” in combination with Hart-787’s device, which attenuates audio output of a device upon detecting a user’s utterance intended to gain the attention of the device, in order to “include adjusting the audio output volume of a wirelessly-linked audio-producing device when the voice-controlled device determines that the ambient noise level at the time a Ex. 1004, 2:22–37, 5:61–6:10, 9:18–25; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 24, 32, 54; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–89). Petitioner further proposes including a threshold that is advantageously based on the environment in which the device is operating as described in Fu, for example to respond to differing levels of noise at different times of day. Id. at 26, 29–30, 40 (citing Ex. 1006, 10:42–67, 14:28–30; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–53, 55, 58, 87, 91, 107–109). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s arguments address the references individually instead of addressing the combination of the teachings proposed in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 8, 13–14; see also Dec. on Inst. 21–22, 23–24, 25–26. The Petition relies upon a combination of elements of Hart-787 with the predetermined threshold as taught in Fu and with establishing such a threshold based on the operating environment of a device as in Rosenberg. Pet. 26–31, 34–41. Patent Owner is correct that Rosenberg’s threshold is set at the time of the utterance in Rosenberg’s claim 5 and cites Petitioner’s declarant as “conceding” issues regarding how “Rosenberg’s volume threshold is determined.” PO Resp. 20–21. But this argument and the ostensible concession do not squarely address the proposed combination, which combines Fu’s teaching of an adjustment unit that “compares the volume of the ambient noise received . . . to a predetermined threshold” with Rosenberg’s teaching that such “a threshold may be ‘determined based on the volume of [an] ambient audio signal.’” Pet. 39, 40 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1006, 14:28–30). While Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner has not proposed using a predetermined/pre-set threshold or a previously established threshold based on environmental noise in the combination of Hart-787 with F[u] and Rosenberg” (PO Resp. 46), we find, on the contrary, that the Petition describes a combination based predetermined threshold” and on a threshold “determined according to an environmental noise level.” Pet. 29–30. Thus, we find Petitioner’s unpatentability grounds do not suffer from the issues Patent Owner argues are a consequence of the purported use of the same sound data for the “first sound data” of claim limitation 1.a and for the “second sound data” of claim limitation 1.c. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Fu’s teachings with respect to limitation 1.e’s “transition from a first state having a first volume level to a second state having a second volume level that is less than the first volume level” because these arguments similarly do not address the proposed combination. See PO Resp. 26–30. The Petition cites Hart-787 for attenuating the volume of an audio-producing device when a wake word is issued. Pet. 32–34, 43–44. The Petition cites Fu for adjusting volume of an audio-producing device if the level of ambient noise exceeds a predetermined threshold. Id. at 36–39, 44–45. Thus, even if Fu teaches only increasing the volume of an audio-producing device if the predetermined threshold is exceeded, the Petition relies on the combination of teachings of Hart-787 and Fu, and Patent Owner’s argument that neither reference teaches “decreasing a controllable appliance’s volume output when a previously established volume threshold is exceeded” (PO Resp. 30) does not address the combination proposed. Patent Owner’s argument that “Petitioner has not proposed modifying Fu to decrease a controllable appliance’s volume output when a volume threshold is exceeded” (PO Resp. 30) similarly does not address the combination proposed in the Petition. We also find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s showing regarding the motivation to combine the references.” slip op. at 23

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

    “We also find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s showing regarding the motivation to combine the references. transmitted volume down control signals as the means for attenuating audio output, Petitioner contends that Hart-787 “broadly teaches” that a device transmits control command signals to the audio-producing device, relying on the testimony of its declarant. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 82), 43–44 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:67–2:7, 2:26–27, 5:47–51; Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). In addition, Petitioner shows that these control signals were well-known in the art and would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, supporting its showing with additional testimony from its declarant. Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 10183, 2:39–47, 5:35–38; Ex. 10194 ¶¶ 3, 13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–45, 118). We conclude Petitioner’s evidence regarding the showing in Hart-787 is sufficient with respect to this point. Hart-787 describes altering a signal sent to the speaker to attenuate the audio from that speaker. Ex. 1004, 1:67– 2:1. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that using transmitted control signals to do this would have been known to one of ordinary skill. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–45, 82, 118. We consider Petitioner’s evidence regarding what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Hart-787’s disclosure to be sufficient for the showing regarding the “causing one or more commands to be automatically issued to the controllable appliance to thereby cause” that appliance to transition to a lower volume level, as required in limitation 1.e. While Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s declarant “concede[s] that Hart- 787 does not disclose or teach how its voice-controlled device decreases the audio output of the controllable appliance,” the cited portion of the” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,930,276 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,930,276
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Wrinkl, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 23, 2022 · IPR2021-00882 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Ji and Sarafa; the Board did not reach the Ji, Sarafa, and Oh ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredMixed

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that the arguments in sub-section 2 on pages 8–9 of Petitioner’s Reply are improper new arguments. Rather, we find these arguments properly elaborate on the Petition, in response to the proposed construction of “link” in Patent Owner’s Response. Although we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not include the phrase “quoted message identifier,” Sarafa explains that the quoted message cited in the Petition and the “quoted message identifier” are part of the same message package. E.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 83. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s citation of the quoted message in the Petition and then the quoted message identifier in the Reply is like if I have a patent to some kind of car and someone points to a Porsche and says, look, the Porsche has an engine, and then we argue about an engine, and then they come back and say, well, we're referring to the turbo charger in the engine in their reply, even though they never mention turbo charger, and said that's the key, it's like, well, we weren't on notice of that. Tr. 71:2–9. We find this unpersuasive. Patent Owner does not explain why a reply that cites a subcomponent of an item cited in the petition would necessarily go beyond properly elaborating on the arguments in the petition.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find Petitioner’s proposed definition reasonable and consistent with the prior art before us. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Accordingly, we apply the level of skill identified by Petitioner. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that the level of skill it identifies differs very little from Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, and our analysis below would be the same under either party’s identified level of skill.” slip op. at 16

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

    “In order to resolve the parties’ patentability dispute, we only need to resolve whether the correct construction of “link” requires using an address specifically (rather than data generally) to “point to” a message. We find the record lacks persuasive support for such a construction. Looking to the ’198 patent itself first, neither the claims nor the Specification says anything about “point[ing] to” a message or another resource. See generally Ex. 1001. The ’198 patent mentions “address” only once, and that passage refers to a person’s address, not a message’s address. Id. at 12:29–33. Additionally, Patent Owner does not cite any other intrinsic evidence, such as the prosecution history of the ’198 patent, supporting a construction of “link” requiring a message’s address. See, e.g., PO Resp. 10–12; PO Sur-reply 2–7.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ji and Sarafa. As explained below, Petitioner persuades us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Ji teaches automatic scrolling, and that Sarafa’s automatic scrolling would have beneficially complemented Ji’s. Pet. 21–22; Pet. Reply 14–17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–77; Ex. 1018 ¶ 47. Additionally, regardless of whether Ji teaches automatic scrolling in paragraph 92, Petitioner persuades us that Ji and Sarafa address similar problems related to tracking and understanding convoluted conversations in messaging systems. See Pet. 16–21; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64, 65, 70, 73, 74. As Dr. Cockburn testifies, Ji emphasizes the problem that users cannot quickly find and understand messages in complicated message streams. Ex. 1003 ¶ 64 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 2); Pet. 16. Petitioner also persuades us that Sarafa addresses such problems, at least in part, by expressly teaching certain advantages of its scroll-back feature, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it advantageous to add Sarafa’s scroll-back feature to Ji’s system. See Pet. 18–19; 21–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70, 74. For example, addressing the same problems discussed in Ji, Sarafa explains that its scroll back feature would facilitate a user’s ability to understand a complicated conversation because “[m]aking available the context of a quoted message may benefit a user in understanding a quoted message by providing messages that were displayed before and/or after the quoted message so as to play the quoted message in context.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 90; Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Similarly, Sarafa explains that its scroll back feature “provid[es] additional context to users . . . , improving the user experience of quoted messages for its users.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 23; Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. We find that these disclosed benefits would have provided compelling motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to add Sarafa’s scroll back feature to Ji’s messaging system. Pet. 19–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 73–77. Indeed, as Dr. Cockburn explains, “[s]ince Ji also quotes the original message in the reply, Sarafa would therefore be a natural complement to Ji.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 77.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 9,860,198 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,860,198
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Cellect, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2021 · IPR2020-00512 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 2 is unpatentable as obvious over Swift, Ricquier, and Suzuki; the Board did not reach the alternative ground involving Larson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Neither party identifies any material differences between a skill level corresponding to approximately two years of professional experience in the field of imaging devices and approximately three years of professional experience in the field of visible optical imaging devices, or any difference in the field of imaging devices and the field of visible optical imaging devices. On this record, there is none. We determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art is at the level of one who would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Physics, or a related field, and approximately two to three years of professional experience in the field of visible optical imaging devices.6 This definition is consistent with the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 6 We do not adopt Petitioner’s inclusion of the qualifier “minimum,” to keep the specified level of skill more definite.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We also are guided by the principle that we only construe claim terms if, and to the extent that, it is necessary for this proceeding. 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)). Neither party requests the construction of any claim term. Pet. 13; PO Resp. 12. Further, we do not find that any claim term requires express construction. III.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Dr. Neikirk’s testimony is rational, and we credit his testimony over the testimony of Patent Owner’s inventor, who provides no explanation as to why it was purportedly unexpected that, as compared to CCD devices, a CMOS imager with remotely located processing circuitry requires no RFI shielding. For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner has not established that the alleged unexpected result would have been unexpected to an ordinarily skilled artisan. Further, even assuming the alleged unexpected result truly would have been unexpected to an ordinarily skilled artisan, Patent Owner has not shown sufficient nexus between the unexpected result and the claimed invention.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, there is no presumption of nexus, and Patent Owner has not separately proved the required nexus for the alleged licensing and commercial success. Thus, there is not a legally and factually sufficient connection between the evidence of licensing and the patented invention.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 9,186,052 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,186,052
• Shopify, Inc. / Priceline.Com LLC et al. v. DDR Holdings, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2020 · IPR2018-01014 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing

  Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and held claims 1–3, 5, 7, 8, 11–13, 15, 17, and 18 unpatentable over the listed prior-art grounds.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “Petitioner’s argument on rehearing is persuasive, particularly under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard of claim construction applied in this proceeding. See Dec. 12–13 (Final Written Decision noting that, for an inter partes review proceeding based on a petition filed prior to November 13, 2018, “the Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear”). Petitioner clarifies that the Petition identifies Exhibit 1009’s buy page as corresponding to the “composite web page contain[ing] one or more selectable URLs” recited in the claim and identifies the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages linked to the “buy” page as corresponding to the recited “hierarchical set of additional pages.” See Req. Reh’g 11 (asserting “the Petition demonstrated that the ‘view cart,’ ‘modify cart,’ and ‘checkout’ links satisfy the second ‘wherein’ clause”). In doing so, Petitioner points us to specific portions of its Petition that we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 102 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 102 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’825 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22. Petitioner thus demonstrates that the buy page shown in Exhibit 1009, i.e., the recited “composite web page,” contains one or more selectable URLs connecting the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages to the buy page, i.e., the recited “hierarchical set of additional web pages,” as required by the claim. Because each of those pages “pertain[s] to a subset of the product offerings in the electronic catalog,” such as those selected for purchase, Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each limitation of the second “wherein” clause of claim 3 is met by the Digital River Publications.” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard of claim construction applied in this proceeding. See Dec. 12–13 (Final Written Decision noting that, for an inter partes review proceeding based on a petition filed prior to November 13, 2018, “the Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear”). Petitioner clarifies that the Petition identifies Exhibit 1009’s buy page as corresponding to the “composite web page contain[ing] one or more selectable URLs” recited in the claim and identifies the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages linked to the “buy” page as corresponding to the recited “hierarchical set of additional pages.” See Req. Reh’g 11 (asserting “the Petition demonstrated that the ‘view cart,’ ‘modify cart,’ and ‘checkout’ links satisfy the second ‘wherein’ clause”). In doing so, Petitioner points us to specific portions of its Petition that we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 102 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 102 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’825 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22. Petitioner thus demonstrates that the buy page shown in Exhibit 1009, i.e., the recited “composite web page,” contains one or more selectable URLs connecting the “view cart,” “modify cart,” and “check out” pages to the buy page, i.e., the recited “hierarchical set of additional web pages,” as required by the claim. Because each of those pages “pertain[s] to a subset of the product offerings in the electronic catalog,” such as those selected for purchase, Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each limitation of the second “wherein” clause of claim 3 is met by the Digital River Publications.” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “we find provide sufficient support for this position. Specifically, the Petition cites to paragraph 102 of Dr. Shamos’s Declaration, and both the Petition and that Declaration cite multiple times to page 1 of Exhibit 1009. See Pet. 21; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102. In describing the correspondence to the “hierarchical set of additional pages,” Dr. Shamos testifies that “[t]he buy pages also provide a link (i.e., selectable URL) to a shopping cart, which, as described by the 21 Software Drive website, allows a user to add products to a shopping cart, view a shopping cart, modify a shopping cart, and check out.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 102 (citing Ex. 1009, 1). We credit this testimony, which is unrebutted on the record before us. Indeed, Dr. Shamos’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have understood Exhibit 1009’s sequence of URLs as satisfying the claimed “hierarchical set of additional webpages” is consistent with the manner in which the ’825 patent itself describes its shopping cart functionality—namely, as nothing more than the ability to “ADD TO CART,” “VIEW SHOPPING CART,” “UPDATE QUANTITIES,” and “CHECK OUT.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 22.” slip op. at 6

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,515,825
• Daimler AG / Daimler North America Corporation et al. v. Stragent, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2018 · IPR2017-00458 · APJ Carl L Silverman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 over Miesterfeld, Stewart, and Wense; claims 1, 3–7, and 20 are also unpatentable over Posadas, Stewart, and Wense.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner proposes that the term, “sharing the information,” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which Patent Owner argues is “completing delivery to a destination” as information is not “shared” until the information has completed delivery to a destination. PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner contends the claim language and the specification describe the actual delivery of information to the local bulletin board. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:27–31, 12:33–35). Petitioner contends Patent Owner’s proposed meaning is unreasonably narrow and proposes, instead, that the term “should be construed as ‘making the information available to another process,’ consistent with its plain meaning.” Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 29). Petitioner observes the challenged claims do not recite delivery into a second process, and 7 Petitioner refers to the ’843 patent; in context, it is clear the reference is intended to be to the ’705 patent. additionally notes claim 1 of the related ’843 patent merely requires “sharing the information” and it is not until dependent claim 16 of the ’843 patent that “sharing” further includes “providing the information.” Id. Petitioner contends the doctrine of claim differentiation further supports its proposed claim construction. Id. Petitioner contends this claim construction is consistent with the Specification in which information is shared by placing the information on a bulletin board. Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 32). We agree with Petitioner’s claim construction analysis and agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sharing the information” is “making the information available to another process.”” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art “would have at least an undergraduate degree in Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent degree, and at least two years relevant experience in industry.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 48. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Jeffrey A. Miller, Ph.D, asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least the qualifications of or equivalent to either a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with course work or research in embedded networking technologies or an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with at least two years of relevant work experience in industry. Ex. 2004 ¶ 12. Based upon our review of the ’705 patent and the prior art of record, we find Dr. Miller’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art reasonable, and adopt it for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree that Stewart’s memory management techniques are fundamental techniques applicable to shared memory environments and Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In particular, we credit Dr. Koopman’s testimony as being more persuasive than Dr. Miller’s testimony. See Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 59– 62; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97, 98; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30–39.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Patent Owner contends there is no basis for combining Posadas and Stewart to arrive at the invention of claim 1. PO Resp. 27–30 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30, 33). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner provides no explanation why a skilled artisan would have combined Posadas’s blackboard system with Stewart’s non-blackboard system. Id. (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 34– 39). Petitioner contends a blackboard is simply a specific type of shared memory and the operations described by Stewart are fundamental features that could apply to any shared memory environment, e.g., determining whether memory is available before writing is a basic process that is not specific to any memory architecture. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 57–60). According to Petitioner, Stewart’s spin locks were well–known, simple tools to access shared memory and application to Posadas would have been straightforward. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 57–59; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97–99). We agree that Stewart’s memory management techniques are fundamental techniques applicable to shared memory environments and Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In particular, we credit Dr. Koopman’s testimony as being more persuasive than Dr. Miller’s testimony. See Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 59– 62; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97, 98; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30–39.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,209,705 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,209,705
• Bose Corporation v. Freebit AsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2018 · IPR2017-00130 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 7–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Berg, Varming, and Aber; claim 6 is unpatentable as obvious over those references and Marshall.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner and argues that a skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree or master’s degree in audiology or hearing science and at least three years of experience with developing earphone and hearing instrument products.” PO Resp. 26. We do not discern a meaningful difference between the parties’ proposals, and the parties do not contend that any such difference has an impact on this proceeding. In any case, our findings and conclusions are the same under either party’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner’s theory of obviousness, however, is that the prior art renders the challenged claims obvious even under Patent Owner’s narrower constructions. Pet. 37–39; Reply 4. For example, Petitioner argues: What they are saying is that the curvature, this new curvature that they have put into that C-shaped pad has to itself engage and fit closely, in other words touch the concha of the ear. We think that this is a narrow interpretation. When you look at the claim language, we are not really seeing support, Your Honor, for that particular narrow construction. And yet, what we are saying is that nonetheless, if we were to adopt that narrow construction, the prior art renders it obvious. Tr. 7:8–15. Petitioner does not have a theory of obviousness under broader constructions, should we find that the challenged claims are not rendered obvious under Patent Owner’s proposed constructions. Reply 4; Tr. 7:16– 9:2. Accordingly, we evaluate Petitioner’s allegations under Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, and need not determine whether the proper constructions should be broader to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “one problem with each of Mauney, Feldman, and Berg, “Varming does not identify the protrusion intended to penetrate into the ‘void or cavity’ of a user’s ear as a drawback of any one of these three devices.” Reply 6–7. We agree with Petitioner. As to Mauney and Feldman, Varming identifies protrusions that enter the ear canal as problematic because they block ambient sound and perspiration. Ex. 1005, 1:23–27, 2:1–6. As to Berg, Varming states that Berg’s large C-shaped pad interferes with the crus of helix, at least for those users with “a distinct and emphasized Crus of Helix,” causing discomfort or preventing the device from staying fixed in the ear. Id. at 2:20–23. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Varming does not identify interference with the crus of helix at the front of the ear as a problem in any of the three references it discusses in its background. Petitioner also points out that “Varming teaches quite the opposite, because its own device ‘penetrates’ into the void or cavity at the front of a user’s ear.” Reply 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:8–12 (“a first one of the pads being shaped and positioned to fit into the area of the Cymba Concha by penetration from the area below the Inferior Crux of the Antihelix and above the Crus of Helix”), 8:23–25 (“The pads are formed as one penetrating the area in the Cymba Concha from the area below the inferior Crux of the Antihelix and above the Crus of Helix.”)). After considering Varming’s background discussion and the description of its own invention, we are not persuaded that Varming’s discussion of Berg’s interference with the crus of helix refers to interference at the front of the ear. Rather, Varming clearly describes a device that protrudes into the void or cavity at the front of the ear, a fact that undermines Patent Owner’s argument and the testimony of Dr. Staab.” slip op. at 30

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

    “As noted in the Institution Decision, however, Petitioner does not propose simply incorporating groove 18 from Aber into Berg’s C-shaped earpiece. Dec. 22. Cf. In re Mouttet, 686 F. 3d 1322, 1332 (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”). Rather, Petitioner argues that a skilled artisan would have modified Berg’s C-shaped earpiece by adding a groove at the location of the gap specified in Varming. Pet. 31–32. As Dr. Casali observes, “Aber teaches a known alternative feature for accommodating ridges of the outer ear, which include the extension of the crus of helix.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. According to Dr. Casali, “as a result of this modification, the concha-facing contact surface of earpiece 10 would substantially conform to the concha and enable the ear unit to fit closely against the concha when the ear unit is positioned into the ear.” Id. ¶ 71. We find Dr. Casali’s testimony credible and persuasive. As Dr. Casali notes (Ex. 1003 ¶ 71), Berg states that groove 18 partially embracing the crus of helix “assist[s] in firmly retaining the audiophone in place in the ear” and provides “a much greater area of contact between the cap 14 and the ear than is commonly found in devices of this kind, which results in less strain on the ear.” Ex. 1006, 1:75–83. We find that Aber provides a teaching that a groove embracing a ridge of the ear helps hold a device in place in the ear and find that this teaching would have been applicable to Berg’s earpiece. Because the extension of the crus of helix at the location of Varming’s gap is less pronounced than the crus of helix at the front of the ear, a groove at Varming’s gap providing the benefits expressly specified by Aber would be correspondingly less pronounced. Ex. 1003 ¶ 71; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 22–23.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,976,995 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,976,995
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2018 · IPR2017-00001 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham; Petitioner did not show claim 8 unpatentable on that ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction against the prior art than it does to construction of the term itself. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, like Petitioner’s, does not, on its face, exclude RF protocol conversion. In this respect, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is improperly attempting to read in additional limitations that go beyond claim 5’s broad recitation of a “transmitter . . . configured to encode the electrical signal.” See Paper 45, 3. As Petitioner further observes, the Specification of the ’661 patent refers interchangeably to data controller 324 (shown in Figures 3A–3E, not reproduced here) as “data formatter 324” (emphasis added), which “operates to form concise data packets.” Id.; Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 49–51. Petitioner’s proposed construction is thus consistent with the Specification. Patent Owner agrees that data controller 324 “encodes a physical condition into a function code,” but emphasizes that it does so “before getting converted by the RF transmitter.” Paper 44, 3. The distinction Patent Owner relies on to exclude RF protocol conversion from its proposed construction would improperly narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding a limitation that has no express basis in the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969) (“Nevertheless, ‘reading a claim in the light of the specification,’ to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.”). Having thus considered the parties’ positions, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “encoded electrical signal” as “coded information representing the electrical signal generated by the sensor.” We address application of this construction to the prior art in the analysis below.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner does not advocate for a specific level of skill in its Response, but its expert, Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D., articulates a level of skill similar to Petitioner’s proposal. Ex. 2009 ¶ 75. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth opines that a person of ordinary skill “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent and experience with, or exposure to, computer networks and routing.” Id. In addition, according to Dr. Almeroth, a person of ordinary skill “would also have approximately two years of professional experience with computer networking, routing, and wireless networks. Id. And “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Given the similarity of articulations by the respective experts, and because our Decision does not depend on nuanced distinctions of the level of skill in the art, we adopt Dr. Almeroth’s more detailed articulation, but include electrical engineering as an additional alternative educational background, as indicated by Mr. Kinney.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We thus agree with Patent Owner that the rationale articulated by Petitioner is conclusory, and insufficiently supported. PO Resp. 30–31. On the record before us, it is more reasonable to construe “the transceiver identification information” as referring to something other than the identification information for the at least one wireless transmitter. For example, Patent Owner contends that “[o]ne skilled in the art, reading the plain text of claims 5 and 8, would easily recognize that the ‘transceiver’ referred to in claim 8 is the transmitter in claim 5 that is configured to both send and receive signals.” Id. at 33. Patent Owner provides support for this reading both by identifying disclosure in the Specification of the ’661 patent consistent with its position, and through testimony by its expert, Dr. Almeroth. Id. at 33–36 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3C, 3D, col. 6, ll. 3–8, col. 9, ll. 53–56, col. 10, ll. 32–34; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 125–132). For example, Dr. Almeroth testifies that Mason’s AMR server “at most would need only some meter identification number and a meter reading.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 134. We credit this testimony, as well as Dr. Almeroth’s assertion that “[t]ransceiver identification information is extraneous for the needs of the AMR server in Cunningham and Mason.” Id. Ultimately, we need not resolve the construction issues, and the issue of whether claim 8 is indefinite is not before us. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (limiting inter partes review to “a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103”). It is sufficient for us to determine whether Petitioner has put forth sufficient evidence to meet its burden of establishing that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham. In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Petitioner has not.” slip op. at 34

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

    “c. “one or more additional wireless transmitters” Third, Petitioner combines the teachings of Shuey with those of Mason in addressing claim 5’s recitation of “one or more additional wireless transmitters.” Id. at 62–63. The claim requires that each such additional wireless transmitter is “electrically interfaced with a sensor and configured to receive the RF signal and retransmit the RF signal,” i.e., to act as a repeater. Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 22–24. As discussed above, Mason discloses that meter 12D is considered “inaccessible” with respect to node 18, and that another meter within the network may act as a repeater so that the inaccessible meter may still be contacted. Id. at col. 6, ll. 27–35. Petitioner cites Shuey for details regarding the information included in retransmission by meters acting as repeaters, and provides sufficient reason to effect the combination in light of Mason’s explicit reference to Shuey: “A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate into Mason’s system Shuey’s teaching of a repeater that retransmits all of the claimed information, because Mason explicitly notes that Shuey’s system is a system for which Mason’s invention is particularly suited.” Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 6, ll. 35–38; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–112). Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,468,661 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,468,661
• Blue Coat Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2017 · IPR2016-01444 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing

  Granted Blue Coat’s rehearing request and instituted review of claims 1, 4–6, 9, 12–14, 17, 24, 35, and 37; the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted § 103 grounds.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “reexamination proceeding. Of particular relevance, the reexamination concluded with a Reexamination Certificate issued on November 28, 2016, including a claim for the benefit of the November 8, 1996 filing date of U.S. Provisional Appl. No. 60/030,639 (“the ’639 provisional application”). Ex. 3006 at [60]. In denying the Petition, the Prior Decision noted that “Petitioner has taken no steps to explain or respond to the effect of these developments on its argument.” Dec. 7. This remains true. Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioner that our Prior Decision gave insufficient consideration to the Petition’s assertion that “U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 [(“the ’926 patent”), i.e., an intermediate patent in the priority chain of the ’086 patent] fails to claim priority to the ’639 provisional application and instead the earliest priority document cited in the ’926 patent is [the ’194 patent].” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1012, col. 1, ll. 8–32); see Req. Reh’g 4–5, 6 n.4, 7–9. For a claim of a patent to be entitled to the effective filing date of an earlier filed application, each application in the priority chain must refer to the earlier filed application. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc., 609 F.3d 1345, 1350–52 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Rehearing Request and proceed to the merits of the Petition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “a formally defined safety policy” and allows checking “with certainty, that the proof is valid and hence the foreign code is safe to execute.” Ex. 1004, 107. Thus, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand Necula to teach that its proof-carrying code adds to the foreign code, consistent with the construction of “append” that we apply herein, and Petitioner articulates sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to apply that teaching to Swimmer’s representation of DSP data. See Pet. 46–49. This is not an instance, for example, in which Petitioner relies on a characterization of the problem provided by the patent to derive its reasoning. Cf., e.g., Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Indeed, Patent Owner’s contention that “the storage of the DSP in a database is one of the key features that distinguishes the ‘086 Patent over the prior art” dilutes the strength of its argument. The contrary positions of the parties’ declarants in their testimonial evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact, which we resolve in the light most favorable to Petitioner for purposes of this Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing also with respect to these elements, and that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claims 1 and 9. See infra Section II.E.10 (discussing limits in our weighing of Patent Owner’s Secondary Considerations evidence in this Preliminary Proceeding).” slip op. at 21

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

    “be considered under 35 U.S.C. § 312 because Petitioner has failed to name all real parties in interest, as required by the statute.” Prelim. Resp. 9. The parties agree that, on June 12, 2016, Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) announced that it was acquiring Petitioner. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 9. The Petition discloses that “[t]he transaction is expected to close in the third quarter of 2016,” and that “[a]s of the filing date of this petition the transaction has not been executed.” Pet. 13. The Petition further represents that “Symantec has not controlled or had the ability to control the filing of this petition, whether through funding or strategy.” Id. As noted above, Petitioner expressly identified Symantec as a real party in interest before any decision on institution of an inter partes review was made. Paper 8, 2. Patent Owner contends that “Symantec had control over the filing of the Petition during the period between the announcement of the acquisition and the closing of the acquisition,” which it asserts occurred on August 1, 2016. Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner also contends that it “understands from the underlying litigation that ‘Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’ no longer exists 1 A petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim of priority for the ’926 patent, claiming the benefit of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/790,097 which was filed January 29, 1997, was dismissed by the Office on June 13, 2017. Exs. 1027, 3007. A renewed petition was filed on June 16, 2017. Ex. 3008. At this time, the Office has not ruled on the renewed petition, and that pending petition accordingly does not affect our determination of the challenged claims’ effective filing date for purposes of this Decision. as an entity, or at least goes by ‘Blue Coat Systems LLC’ for at least the last two months.” Id. at 10. We have reviewed the evidence provided by Patent Owner and find it insufficient to support Patent Owner’s allegation that Petitioner has failed to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a) or 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3). That evidence is, at best, suggestive regarding an issue that is not jurisdictional. Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., Case IPR2015-00739, slip op. (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (Paper 38) (precedential).” slip op. at 9

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

    “1. “Downloadable” Every challenged independent claim recites a “Downloadable,” and Petitioner contends that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ‘downloadable’ includes ‘an executable application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on a destination computer.’” Pet. 15. Petitioner’s proposed construction parallels a statement made in the Specification of the ’194 patent. Ex. 1012, col. 1, ll. 44–47. Patent Owner “does not dispute” this proposed construction, which we adopt for purposes of this Decision. Prelim. Resp. 5. 2. “database” Challenged independent claim 42 recites “a database of Downloadable security profiles.” Petitioner contends that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ‘database’ includes ‘a collection of interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve one or more applications.’” Pet. 15. Patent Owner also “does not dispute” this proposed construction, but argues that “the practical import of Petitioner’s proposed construction for the term ‘database,’ is that log files, such as Swimmer’s audit trail, do not fall within the scope of the claims.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6. That is, Patent Owner contends that “logging functionality is distinct from storing in a database, which allows DSP to be efficiently retrieved from the database,” as compared with the “record-keeping” functionality of an “event log.” Id. at 7. Patent Owner’s argument was considered by the panel in IPR2015- 01892, which concluded that, “[t]o the extent that construction would exclude a log file consisting of an ‘unstructured collection of data on a computer,’ . . . [an] unstructured log file would not be a database,” but the construction does not “necessarily exclude[] all log files from being databases.” 1892 Dec. 16 (emphasis in original). We agree with the reasoning expressed in the Final Written Decision of IPR2015-01892. Id. at 12–17. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,079,086
• Qualcomm Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-01577 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 14, 16, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are unpatentable; claims 3, 15, and 27 were not shown unpatentable, with the specified-vote limitation not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “sequence.” Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding, attests that the phrase is “a well-understood term of art.” Ding Decl. ¶ 35 (citing Ex. 1016, 127–33). Consistent with Dr. Ding’s testimony, we applied a preliminary construction of “hopping sequence” in the Institution Decision as “the order in which the communications network hops among the set of frequencies.” Dec. 7. That construction is not contested by Patent Owner, and we adopt it for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “as disclosed by Gerten’s description of modified frequency hopping schemes. Id. at 14. In doing so, Petitioner notes that Gerten discloses periodic updating of the modified frequency hopping scheme, supporting a conclusion that Gerten discloses selection at different times. Id. at 14, 15– 16. Petitioner highlights this periodic updating to identify distinct “period[s] of time” during which different “set[s] of two or more communications channels [are] used to transmit and receive.” Id. at 15–16 (italics omitted). In addressing independent claim 1’s specific requirement that different sets of channels be used with the second and third communications devices, Petitioner reasons that the process summarized above may be applied by the master device to each of the slave devices separately: “the master device of Gerten performs a service discovery request to determine if each slave device has interference avoidance capabilities.” Id. at 18 (emphasis added) (citing Ding Decl. ¶ 53; Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 38–51). Thus, Petitioner argues, if one slave has such interference avoidance capabilities, communications with that slave may take place using a modified frequency hopping scheme; if another (legacy) slave lacks such interference avoidance capabilities, communications take place using a normal mode with default communications channels that are not changed based on channel performance. Id. at 18 (citing Ding Decl. ¶ 55); see id. at 16–17. Thus, Petitioner concludes, the recited transmissions and receptions from the third communications device over default communications channels occur “while” transmitting to and receiving from the second communications device over the first and second sets of communications channels, as we have construed the term “while.” Petitioner supports this reasoning with testimony by Dr. Ding, which we credit. Id. at 18 (citing Ding Decl. ¶¶ 53– 55).” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner further provides persuasive reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the relevant teachings of Gerten and Cuffaro, including that “Cuffaro and Gerten are in the same field of endeavor” of selecting channels to avoid interference in a communications system; that measuring interference signal strength at a slave device such as described by Cuffaro provides a more accurate determination of the impact of the receiver unit from the interference on a given channel, and, therefore, would provide more accurate identification of bad channels in Gerten; and that Gerten suggests such a modification by describing that both a master and a slave can participate in identifying channels to avoid. Pet. 30–31. Petitioner supports this reasoning with declaration testimony by Dr. Ding. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 128, 129.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (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. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)). Patent Owner understates the degree to which Petitioner addresses the analogousness of the art by focusing on Petitioner’s contention that Gerten and Cuffaro are in the same field of endeavor. PO Resp. 40 (citing Pet. 30). Petitioner also addresses the second prong of the Clay test by providing reasons why a person of skill in the art would use the transmitted performance data of Cuffaro in the selection process of Gerten, including improved accuracy in determining the impact on the receiver unit from the interference on a given channel. See Pet. 31. We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning and find that Cuffaro and Gerten are analogous art to the claimed invention at least because they are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 14, and 26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gerten and Cuffaro.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,477,624 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,477,624
• Maxlinear, Inc. v. Cresta Technology Corp. And CF Crespe LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 15, 2016 · IPR2015-00594 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 and 24–29 are unpatentable; claims 18–23 were not shown unpatentable because the § 103(c) safe haven bars the obviousness grounds against them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the burden of persuasion to establish unpatentability is Petitioner’s burden and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 3–4; 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); Nike, Inc. v. Adidias AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not met the burden of establishing that Favrat is “by another” as required by § 102(e). PO Resp. 4–25. Petitioner responds that Patent Owner is incorrect in that the burden of production has shifted to Patent Owner. Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The shifting burden of production is not applicable to our analysis under § 102(e). See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 2016 WL 3974202, No. 2015-1300, slip op. at 13–18 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Patent Owner here, like the patent owner in Magnum Oil Tools, seeks to disprove Petitioner’s contention. Magnum Oil Tools, slip op. at 16. The inquiry before us is whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Favrat is “by another” as required by § 102(e).” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Mr. Mombers, a Group B inventor, testified to the ITC that he conceived of the signal processor of claim 1, the sole independent claim of the ’792 patent, and thus conceived of every claim of the ’792 patent. All of the evidence presented to the ITC that was submitted and argued here is consistent with Mr. Mombers’s assertion. Patent Owner corroborated this testimony by stating that Favrat is prior art under § 102(e), meaning it is “by another.” Considering the entire admissible record, we determine that a 19 In re Land, 368 F.2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1966), is also distinguishable because the patents were related. preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Favrat is “by another” as required by § 102(e).” slip op. at 23

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

    “Consequently, with regard to claims 3, 6–10, and 12–17, Patent Owner has failed to carry its burden of establishing when the ’792 patent “was made.” As a result, the safe haven of § 103(c) does not apply, and we need not reach the question of common ownership or obligation of assignment as of the filing date of the ’792 patent. b) Claims 18–23 The evidence provided by Petitioner does not address claims 18–23. See Ex. 1212, 5–6. That is, Patent Owner did not assert these claims were conceived and reduced to practice at an earlier date. Given the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the ’792 patent “was made” as of its filing date applies. Our inquiry is then whether as of that date, Favrat and the ’792 patent were “owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.” See 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1). As explained above, Patent Owner asserts, with supporting evidence, that Favrat and the ’792 patent were commonly owned as of the filing date of the ’792 patent. Petitioner provides no evidence to the contrary regarding 23 Petitioner contends, without supporting evidence, that because the references asserted against Patent Owner in the ITC proceeding predated even the May 2001 date, Patent Owner changed to rely upon the filing date of the ’792 patent as the priority date. Pet. Reply 19 n.9. common ownership or evidence of assignment as of the filing date of the ’792 patent. Rather, Petitioner provides argument and evidence regarding common ownership and obligation of assignment for dates prior to the filing date of the ’792 patent. See Pet. Reply 17–24. We need not consider this argument and evidence as it does not pertain to the date at issue (i.e., the filing date of the ’792 patent, which is the date that claims 18–23 were made). In light of this, Patent Owner has demonstrated that claims 18–23 are subject to the safe haven of § 103(c). Consequently a ground of unpatentability based on obviousness may not be asserted against Patent Owner for these claims.” slip op. at 27

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Not reached

    “because it is in response to Patent Owner’s argument in the Response that Favrat is not prior art under § 102(a). See PO Resp. 22 n.2; Paper 71, 1. However, this does not end our inquiry. If the assertion that Favrat is prior art under § 102(a) was required to be in the Petition, then the fact that the issue was raised in Patent Owner’s Response does not cure that oversight. As the Federal Circuit recently emphasized, It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify “with particularity” the “evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) (requiring a petition to specify the specific statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 102). Prior to filing of the instant Petition, Petitioner knew from Patent Owner’s contentions in the ITC proceeding that the safe haven of § 103(c) was a potential issue. See Ex. 1207, 3. Even armed with this knowledge, Petitioner chose not to assert in the Petition that Favrat is prior art under § 102(a). If Petitioner had asserted both § 102(a) and § 102(e), perhaps Patent Owner would have chosen a different response and the evidence in this proceeding would have developed differently. In the particular circumstances of this case, adding consideration of § 102(a) at this late date would deprive Patent Owner of due process. Consequently, we do not consider Petitioner’s contention that Favrat is prior art under § 102(a).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,265,792 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,265,792

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.