- Veeam Software Corporation v. Hybir, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01040 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Field; the Board did not reach the alternative Strong and Field ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“As we noted in the Institution Decision, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art that was very similar to Petitioner’s proposal. Inst. Dec. 15 (citing Prelim. Resp. 28). On the preliminary record at that time, we found both parties’ proposals consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. Id. (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978)). And, on that record, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have “a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least three to five years of academic or industry experience in the fields of data storage, data backup, data restoration, data replication and deduplication, and/or data synchronization.” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“which states: “A method of synchronizing electronic data stored on a first client device with at least a second client device.” Ex. 1001, 19:8–9. Petitioner contends the preamble of claim 1 is not limiting because it states a purpose or intended use for the method recited and neither the term synchronizing nor the full preamble is referenced again in other claim elements. Pet. 10 (citing Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods, Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the preamble of claim 1 does not limit the scope of the claim. See Inst. Dec. 18–19. Patent Owner does not contest that preliminary determination in its Response and confirmed at the oral hearing that it does not contend the preamble is limiting. See generally PO Resp.; Tr. 107:15– 16 (confirming that Patent Owner does not assert the preamble is limiting). Accordingly, for the reasons explained in our Institution Decision and because the parties agree, we maintain our preliminary determination and reaffirm that the preamble of claim 1 is not limiting, and, therefore, we need not expressly construe it.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“unclear. Nonetheless, we find that Field teaches receiving a first “inventory” for the reasons explained by Petitioner and based on our construction of “inventory” at least because Field receives an itemized list of electronic data in the form of one or more signatures. Thus, since Field teaches an “inventory,” we do not agree with Patent Owner that Field teaches away from an “inventory.” Additionally, “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that, to teach away, the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Patent Owner, however, fails to identify, and we do not discern, any indication in Field that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from following Field’s teachings or modifying Field as proposed by Petitioner. Further, to this latter point, we do not discern any specific argument by Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Field as Petitioner proposes, aside from Patent Owner’s assertions of teaching away.22 Considering the complete record before us, for the reasons explained above we find that Petitioner has established that Field teaches or suggests limitation 1A.1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to modify Field as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 54
Patent outcomesUS 9,679,146 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,146 - Veeam Software Corporation v. Hybir, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01039 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Field and Anderson; claim 5 over Field, Anderson, and Ackerman; and claim 11 over Field, Anderson, and Coombs.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, we find that the complete record does not support” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“away and (2) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Field in light of potential inefficiencies. With respect to whether Field teaches away, Patent Owner’s argument is premised, in part, on a requirement derived from its proposed construction of “inventory”—that the claimed “inventory” must include additional data, such as filenames and directories. As discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction. Similar to Patent Owner’s earlier argument of a teaching away, Patent Owner fails to identify anything in Field that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from creating an inventory, as properly construed. Accordingly, we do not find that Field teaches away from using or creating an inventory.” slip op. at 69
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Weighing the Graham Factors On balance, considering the complete record before us, Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Field, Anderson, and Coombs would have rendered the subject matter of claim 11 of the ’545 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 99
Patent outcomesUS 9,037,545 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,037,545 - SAP SE v. Teradata US, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 1, 2021 · IPR2021-01017 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, failing to show the claimed file management context in non-persistent memory.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’419 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have possessed at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science with at least two years of experience with database system development.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 21–22). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have had “some combination of (1) more formal education and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 21–22). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding, with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which expands the range of experience indefinitely without an upper bound, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’419 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that no claim terms require explicit construction at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 16. Patent Owner contends that in related district court litigation, Petitioner has proposed construing several terms in accordance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and Patent Owner faults Petitioner for not applying those constructions in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Based on the record before us, we need not construe any claim terms expressly to decide the issues presented at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“does not show sufficiently that the combination of System R and Lorie teaches a “file management context” stored in “non-persistent memory.” See Prelim. Resp. 16–22. As an initial matter, Petitioner asserts that the “Current Page Table and associated data structures such as free-space bit maps” comprise the claimed “file management context” in “non-persistent memory,” but Petitioner does not cite any passage in System R disclosing that the current page table (or any associated data structure) resides “in memory” rather than “on disk,” as shown in Petitioner’s annotated version of System R’s Figure 7. See Pet. 28–35. Nor does Petitioner point to any disclosure in Lorie in support of its contention that the current page table in the System R database system is stored in non-persistent memory. See id.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,904,419 - Walmart Inc. / Z-Shade Co., Ltd. et al. v. Caravan Canopy International, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00449 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Yang and Lynch because the combination teaches the claimed elements and increased headroom supplied a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“invention of the ’040 patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in the mechanical arts, including but not limited to mechanical engineering and industrial design, (2) at least two years of experience in the design or analysis of mechanical devices, fabricated frames, and/or kinematic linkages, and (3) at least a basic understanding of ergonomics. As to part (1), although the parties outline generally similar requirements as to formal schooling, Patent Owner’s proposal provides enhanced clarity as to the identity of the related disciplines, which we view as supported by the record. See, e.g., Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; Rake Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7–9, 19. As to part (2), the parties again outline similar requirements as to work experience, but Petitioner’s proposal provides added detail on experience in relevant design features, which we view as supported by the record. See Exs. 1004–1007. As to part (3), given the nature of the technology at issue, we view a basic understanding of ergonomics as relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:12–49 (discussing operation of the invention by a person); Rake Decl. ¶ 31, cited at PO Resp. 4. This is the same level of ordinary skill adopted in the Decision on Institution. See Dec. Inst. 32–34.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“centrally-disposed, long, slender object.” Pet. 28–32. Patent Owner responds that the District Court rejected this proposal and held that the phrase should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 5–6; see also Ex. 1018 at 6–10 (the District Court declining to construe “center pole”). We do not discern a need to construe explicitly this phrase because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“applicant acted as a lexicographer as to the term “stretching.” We determine that the Specification supports an understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning as extending or spreading out rather than as “make taut” or in “tension.” As argued by Petitioner, “[t]here is no description requiring that a roof be made taut or placed under tension” and, “[t]o the contrary, the specification consistently uses the word ‘stretch’ to describe extending or spreading out.” Pet. Reply 11. For example, in the eleven instances the Specification uses some form of the word “stretch” (aside from in claim 1), six instances relate to “stretching” the frame (or some component of the frame), rather than the roof. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:4–6 (discussing how “the collapsible tent frame of this invention is easily and quickly stretchable or collapsible, thus allowing a user to easily and quickly pitch or strike a tent” (emphasis added)), 3:15–19 (“When it is necessary to pitch the tent, the four side poles 10 are pushed outwardly at the same time, thus stretching the tent frame. When the side poles 10 are pushed outwardly as described above, the sliders 70 move upward along the side poles 10 while stretching the two 14 Under the same logic, Patent Owner’s construction of “stretching” as “make taut” should be rejected because it would render superfluous the “sustaining” requirement in that any “center pole” that makes taut a tent’s roof would also sustain it. Cf. PO Sur-reply 5. types of ribs 20 and 30.” (emphasis added)), 3:23–24 (discussing how “the center pole ribs 30 are fully stretched by the support links 40” (emphasis added)), 3:29–30 (discussing “[w]hen the tent is pitched with the frame being fully stretched as described above” (emphasis added)), 4:12–14 (“When the frame is stretched so as to pitch a tent, the center pole is fully moved upwardly along with the center pole ribs.” (emphasis added)). These instances do not align with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “stretching” as in “tension” or “make taut.” We find particularly supportive of the above-determined construction that in one of those six instances, the Specification directly contrasts—using a disjunctive “or”—“stretchable” with “collapsible.” See Ex. 1001, 3:4–6 (discussing how “the collapsible tent frame of this invention is easily and quickly stretchable or collapsible, thus allowing a user to easily and quickly pitch or strike a tent” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“On the full record developed at trial, we determine that the increased total ceiling height—i.e., “headroom” as used in the Petition—provides adequate “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” based on the proposed modification. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Here, the unmodified version of Yang is most similar to the middle example in Petitioner’s graphic above, as it has no structure underneath the tent roof (as roof support bars 7 and groove joints 6 are essentially at the height of the canopy itself). Compare Pet. Reply 20, with Ex. 1004, Fig. 4. The modified device—Yang modified with apex portion 50 of Lynch—is most similar to the rightmost example in Petitioner’s graphic, as the height of the canopy has been increased at least somewhat as compared to the middle example. See Pet. Reply 20; see also PO Resp. 24 (acknowledging that the proposed modification would “increase the height of the roof (the ceiling height)”). The record supports that this increased total ceiling height—even if only for certain locations where a person might stand—would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang based on Lynch as proposed. This determination is supported by the testimony of Dr. Klopp, who states that “[i]ncreased headroom in some places under a tent is desirable for stationary users, especially for users of above average height.” Klopp Reply Decl. ¶ 113, cited at Pet. Reply 19.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 5,944,040 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 5,944,040 - Walmart Inc. / Z-Shade Co., Ltd. et al. v. Caravan Canopy International, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 22, 2021 · IPR2020-01026 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Yang and Lynch; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“We determine that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’040 patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in the mechanical arts, including but not limited to mechanical engineering and industrial design, (2) at least two years of experience in the design or analysis of mechanical devices, fabricated frames, and/or kinematic linkages, and (3) at least a basic understanding of ergonomics. As to part (1), although the parties outline generally similar requirements as to formal schooling, Patent Owner’s proposal provides enhanced clarity as to the identity of the related disciplines, which we view as supported by the record. See, e.g., Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; Rake Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7–9, 19. As to part (2), the parties again outline similar requirements as to work experience, but Petitioner’s proposal provides added detail on experience in relevant design features, which we view as supported by the record. See Exs. 1004–1007. As to part (3), given the nature of the technology at issue, we view a basic understanding of ergonomics as relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:12–49 (discussing operation of the invention by a person); Rake Decl. ¶ 31, cited at PO Resp. 4. This is the same level of ordinary skill adopted in the Decision on Institution. See Dec. Inst. 32–34.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “Center Pole” Petitioner proposes to construe “center pole” in element 1A as a “centrally-disposed, long, slender object.” Pet. 28–32. Patent Owner responds that the District Court rejected this proposal and held that the phrase should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 5–6; see also Ex. 1018 at 6–10 (the District Court declining to construe “center pole”). We do not discern a need to construe explicitly this phrase because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Under the claim construction standard applied in this proceeding, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). For the reasons below, we view the plain and ordinary meaning of “stretching” on the complete record here as extending or spreading out, in line with portions of Petitioner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“the context of its own invention, “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame,” it is important to note that the Figure 3 embodiment in Lynch includes Velcro fasteners 35 that secure side panel 18 of canopy covering 12 to corner support member 22. See id. at 6:60–64 (“As is shown in phantom in FIG. 3, canopy covering 12 has a side panel 18 which is additionally secured to a top portion of corner support member 22 by means of corresponding hook and loop fasteners, such as Velcro fasteners 35.”). The issue here is whether the “center pole” in the context of the modified device (which does not include Velcro fasteners configured as in Lynch) is “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame.”20 We determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that this requirement would be satisfied in the context of the modified device, even without Velcro fasteners. We first address whether the “center pole” in the modified device is “constructed for . . . sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame.” Petitioner states that after modifying roof bearing beam 8 in Yang to include apex portion 50 from Lynch, the “center pole” would “heighten and hold up the fabric tent roof” from Yang. Pet. 40 (citing Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 74–79). According to Petitioner, the proposed modification “would further push up the tent’s rooftop ‘to increase space for activities’ as well as creating more tension in the rooftop to reduce the risk of the rooftop ‘collapsing, bending, or leaking rainwater when raining.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 at 6–7; Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 77–79). We agree that the apex of the roof in Yang as modified by Lynch’s teachings would be higher than the 20 In the Reply, Petitioner seeks to rely on Lynch’s disclosure of using Velcro to attach the roof to the tent frame. See Pet. Reply 17 (bottom paragraph). As argued by Patent Owner, this is a new argument provided for the first time in reply. See PO Sur-reply 12–13; see also Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We see no error in the Board’s rejection of [a petitioner’s] reliance, in its Reply submissions, on previously unidentified portions of a prior-art reference to make a meaningfully distinct contention.”); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuide Consolidated (“TPG”) (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). We do not consider Velcro fasteners as part of the modified device.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 5,944,040 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 5,944,040 - SAP SE v. Teradata US, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Nov 17, 2021 · IPR2021-00855 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–7, 26–33, and 52–57 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Deshpande ’98 and Shim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’357 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–7, 26–33, and 52–57 of the ’357 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“privy.”). Accordingly, we determine that this factor does not weigh either for or against exercising our discretion to deny institution in this case.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Deshpande ’98 and Shim for a variety of reasons, most notably because Deshpande ’98 explicitly states that in-cache aggregation is the next logical step in multi-dimensional cache development, and Shim advantageously provides an implementation of that aggregation suggested by Deshpande ’98. Pet. 38. Thus, Petitioner contends, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been explicitly directed to look for opportunities to improve on Deshpande ’98’s system via in-cache aggregation,” and that direction would have naturally led to Shim. Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 98). Relying on Dr. Lehner’s testimony for support, Petitioner contends that “[a]ccessing data from cache memory is well known to be significantly faster than accessing data from a database,” “[i]n-cache aggregation [as taught in Shim] increases the amount of cached data that is eligible for answering a current query,” “[m]ore eligible cache data . . . results in more cache hits,” and “a greater number of cache hits results in faster average performance.” Id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 99–100). Petitioner also notes that Shim cites to Deshpande ’98. Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003, 10). Finally, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing the combination of Shim and Deshpande ’98 in view of Shim’s example descriptions and pseudocode algorithms. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 102).” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 16. Patent Owner agrees that most terms do not require construction, but disagrees as to the term “active cache,” recited in independent claims 1, 26, and 28. Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner proposes construing that term to mean a “cache that can not only answer queries that match data stored in the cache, but can also answer queries that require aggregation or other computation of the data stored in the cache,” in accordance with the ’357 patent’s description of an “active cache.” Id. at 10; see Ex. 1001, 3:1–5. As Patent Owner points out, the Petition acknowledges that description of an “active cache” in the ’357 patent and appears to apply such a construction in its unpatentability analysis. Prelim. Resp. 9–10 (citing Pet. 35, 72). In view of the ’357 patent’s description of an “active cache,” at this stage of the proceeding we adopt the proposed construction of “active cache” as a “cache that can not only answer queries that match data stored in the cache, but can also answer queries that require aggregation or other computation of the data stored in the cache.” During trial, if appropriate, the parties may further address the construction of this term.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,763,357 - SAP SE v. Teradata US Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Nov 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00863 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–13, 15, and 17–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. “Data Temperature” Petitioner argues that the term “data temperature” in claims 2–3, 8–9, and 12–13 “includes any value representing the number or frequency of accesses of particular data in storage, either in absolute or relative terms.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:44–47, 15:37–42, 18:24–27; Ex. 1003 ¶ 34). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction in its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 17. At this stage of the proceeding, and based on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of this term.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“At this stage of the proceeding, and based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner’s three proposed constructions of “persistent data temperature” are reasonable and, as discussed further below, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that “persistent data temperature” is disclosed or suggested by the prior art under any of the three constructions. For purposes of institution, we need not determine which of these three proposed constructions is correct; however, the parties may address this issue further if appropriate during the trial. 3. Other Terms We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science and two years of industry experience or research working with database and related storage management technologies,” and that “[a]dditional education, such as an M.S. in computer science, could substitute for the industry experience.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30). According to Petitioner, the person of ordinary skill would have been familiar with “DRAM cache, flash or other solid-state storage device[s], tape, optical media, and other well-known storage types,” “[c]oncepts of data ‘temperature,’” “[m]ulti-level storage tiers and managing data storage between volatile devices (e.g., cache) and non-volatile devices (e.g., disk) based on temperature,” and “[w]ell-known concepts such as volatile storage, non-volatile storage, and data persistency.” Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:23–38, 5:65–6:3, 21:33–43, 25:21–62; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 3–4; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 18– 52; Ex. 1001, 8:7–13). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 17. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’623 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“sufficiently established that Morris inherently discloses this element based on the evidence of record. Petitioner does not point to specific portions of Morris that expressly state that storage information associated with storage of data in the disk drive (such as temperature values 420 in Figure 4) are provided to the cache, or that indicate that this step is necessarily present in Morris’s system. For example, it appears that there might be other places for storing temperature information or other ways of providing that information to the cache. Additionally, Dr. Long does not explain why one of ordinary skill would have “necessarily” understood that Morris’s process would have checked data HEADER 410 in Figure 4 to see if it contained a temperature value, and then used this temperature value as part of the Figure 2 steps, rather than obtaining the temperature value from another source. However, we determine that, for purposes of institution, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that element 1.3 would have been obvious over Morris. Petitioner’s obvious argument is supported by Dr. Long’s testimony that, when using data temperature to determine whether data should be stored in the cache (as reflected in Figure 2), it would have been obvious to “check[] the data ‘HEADER’ (410 in FIG. 4) to see if it contained a ‘temperature value’ (420 in FIG. 4), and then us[e] this temperature value as part of the FIG. 2 steps.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 51. As Dr. Long explains, data objects 400 with headers 410 and temperature values 420 in Figure 4 are “stored on a disk drive.” Id. ¶ 46. Dr. Long further testifies that one of ordinary skill “would have recognized the expressly disclosed ‘temperature value’ variable” 420 stored on the disk “as the best measure of a given data object’s temperature and the first place to check for whether a disk-stored data object had an associated temperature.” Id. “Given the express disclosure of this [temperature value] variable” 420, Dr. Long continues, it “would have been a natural choice” for the person of ordinary skill in the art to use it “when evaluating whether to cache data being read from the disk,” and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Id. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, this testimony provides logical reasons why one of ordinary skill would have provided the temperature value from the disk to the cache, and is not merely “conclusory.” We reach a similar determination as to Petitioner’s obviousness argument based on the process for determining whether data should be deleted from the cache in Morris’s Figure 3. Petitioner’s argument is supported by Morris’s statement that “[t]he data temperature is stored with the data object in the cache,” and Dr. Long’s testimony that it would have been obvious to have “this data temperature in the cache originate[] from the ‘temperature value’ retrieved from the disk when originally storing the data in the cache.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 53; Ex. 1003 ¶ 54. Dr. Long further explains that “it would have been obvious to implement the Morris system in this way because the temperature maintained on the disk was the most natural source for the value of the data temperature stored in the cache,” and one of ordinary skill “would have used that approach with a reasonable expectation of success.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 54. “In fact,” according to Dr. Long, “given that the temperature value was persistently stored with the data on the disk,” the disk “was the only logical source for a reliable temperature value when deciding whether to load the data into the cache,” because “[a]ny other source would have risked being inaccurate or out of date and would have needlessly and redundantly stored the temperature in another location.” Id. This testimony provides logical reasons why one of ordinary skill would have provided the temperature value on the disk to the cache.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,720,623 - SAP SE v. Teradata US Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Nov 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00861 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 and all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Based on the present record, we do not find Patent Owner’s proposed construction supported by the intrinsic evidence. The ordinary meaning of “manage the storage of data in the volatile storage” does not require limiting the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage, and Patent Owner does not argue to the contrary. Turning to the language of the other claims, we note that claim 5, which depends from claim 1, specifically includes additional language stating that the data is stored “only in one of two portions of the volatile storage,” but claim 1 does not include such language. The use of this additional limitation in dependent claim 5 suggests that the inventors did not intend it to be included within claim 1’s broader language reciting “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage.” See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim”). Turning to the ’923 patent specification, the portions of the specification Patent Owner relies on appear to discuss a preferred embodiment of the invention, rather than limiting the invention itself. The portions of columns 14 and 15 upon which Patent Owner relies discuss Figure 3 which, the specification explains, “depicts a volatile storage 300 that uses a persistent temperature-based storage management technique as well as a conventional storage management technique in accordance with one embodiment.” Ex. 1001, 14:48–51 (emphasis added); see id. at 5:5–8 (also describing Figure 3 as being “in accordance with one embodiment” of the invention). Interpreting claim 1 to require maintaining only a single copy of a data portion in either the first portion or second portion, where that language does not exist in claim 1, would be tantamount to reading a limitation from a preferred embodiment into the claims, which would be improper. See Philips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”). Patent Owner does not identify any portions of the specification suggesting that limiting the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage is a necessary part of the invention, or that the inventors intended to expressly or impliedly define “manage the storage of data in the volatile storage” to include this requirement. Consequently, at this stage of the proceeding, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction requiring that “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage” requires “coordinating placement of data into and out of the volatile storage so as to limit the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage.” The parties may further address the meaning of this claim phrase during the trial, if appropriate.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“3. Other Terms We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science and two years of industry experience or research working 2 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. with database and related storage management technologies,” and that “[a]dditional education, such as an M.S. in computer science, could substitute for the industry experience as it typically involves at least two years of additional study focused exclusively on computer science, as well as a thesis or project spanning several terms to implement a substantial project.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). According to Petitioner, the person of ordinary skill would have “understood the advantages of partitioning a volatile memory into multiple different sections (e.g., buffer pools) and applying multiple different storage management (e.g., cache replacement) policies to those different sections, and known how to implement such designs.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 14. For purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’923 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Lee discloses this claim element. Paragraph 17 of Lee discloses the use of a temperature-based storage management technique and a non-temperature-based storage management technique (the LRU replacement policy), and that both “may be used to manage a cache.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 17. Based on the present record, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Lee’s disclosure of using these techniques “to manage a cache” involves “manag[ing] the storage of data in” the cache, because both techniques operate in order to control what data is stored in the cache. We do not find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive because it is based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage” to require “limit[ing] the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage,” which we do not adopt. See § II.A.2, supra. Consequently, we determine that, on the record before us, Petitioner’s cited evidence sufficiently supports its contentions regarding this limitation.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,851,923 - Autostore System Inc. v. Ocado Innovation LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00798 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“storage locations, but that this grid is defined by a structural framework. Ex. 1001, 14:5–6. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that the language of claims 1 and 23 strongly suggests that the structural framework defines the grid of storage locations, and not merely that the structural framework provides open areas within which storage containers could be arranged in a grid-like pattern.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, for the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed in Section II.A.2 above, we construe “a structural framework defining a grid of storage locations,” as recited in claims 1 and 23, to require that a “structural framework” define the grid of storage locations, as opposed to these locations being defined merely by the orientation or location of stacked containers. Petitioner identifies no Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1 and 23 are anticipated by Lert.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“would have been obvious over Lert. Pet. 21–53. Petitioner’s obviousness arguments with respect to these claims do not resolve the issues noted above with respect to independent claims 1, 13, and 23. In particular, Petitioner provides no persuasive argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Lert to have a structural framework that defines the storage locations or to have delivery containers stored within storage containers and delivered to picking workstations. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8, 13–20, and 23 would have been obvious over the disclosures of Lert.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,796,080 - Netflix, Inc. / Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2020-00648 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 16, 17, and 19 are unpatentable over Pyle and Marusi; claims 1–6, 8–10, 13, and 14 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we found that Petitioner’s proposal was consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position. Inst. Dec. 8–9 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978)). As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, we see no reason to disturb that finding. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in adaptive streaming and content management” or “a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in adaptive streaming or content management” and that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” See Inst. Dec. 8–9 (setting forth and adopting Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“the case law makes clear that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising’” unless an “extremely limited” exception applies. See Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 812 F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting KCJ Corp., 223 F.3d at 1356; Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Here, claim 1 recites the transitional phrase “comprising,” meaning it is open-ended, and, therefore, the usual meaning of “a” as “one or more” would have been expected absent an extremely limited exception. In considering whether an exception applies, our review of the ’515 patent fails to indicate that the patentee intended the phrase to mean anything other than the usual meaning of “one or more.” Patent Owner asserts that “[t]he plain language of the claim clearly indicates only a single [list] is used to list multiple assets” and quotes two portions of the Specification, which state “a list of assets that satisfies criteria” and “a list of assets to which a . . . device is granted access.” PO Sur-reply 12–13 (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:60–67) (citing Ex. 1001, 2:23–34, 3:1–5, 4:21–23, 17:59–66). Although claim 1 of the ’515 patent recites “assets” in the plural, we fail to see how that conveys that the term “a” would have been understood as limited to “one.” Notably, neither party has identified any inconsistency, in the claims or other portions of the Specification (including the portions quoted and/or cited by Patent Owner), resulting from construing “a” as “one or more.” And, we find that there is no reason why the claims could not be met under the construction of “a” as “one or more.” Thus, we find that the ’515 patent does not “evince [ ] a clear intent to limit a or an to one.” See Convolve, 812 F.3d at 1321 (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, we construe the term “a” in “a list of assets” as “one or more” such that the phrase “a list of assets” means “one or more list of assets.” Considering next the phrase “the list of assets” recited in limitation 1[e], the parties do not dispute that the use of the term “the” means that “the list of assets” refers back to the one or more list of assets retrieved in limitation 1[d] and discussed above. See PO Resp. 1–2; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. Similarly, the parties do not dispute that the phrase “the filtered list of assets,” recited in limitation 1[e], refers back to the list of assets resulting from the filtering step of limitation 1[d]. See PO Resp. 3–4; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. We agree with the parties that each of these phrases refers back to the previous instance of the recited terms.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“motivated to combine these teachings for several reasons. Pet. 21. First, Petitioner contends “the combination is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices because using the capabilities of a client device to choose appropriately formatted content was a well-known technique.” Id. Petitioner asserts that “implementing Marusi’s techniques for organizing multiple representations and choosing among them based upon a client device’s capabilities would predictably function in Pyle’s system, which similarly seeks to target video content based on particular client device types and parameters.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 10:57–11:10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 147). Second, Petitioner argues that “detecting a client device’s capabilities based upon client device identifiers was a common and known solution to the problem of supplying information in a format usable by the client device.” Pet. 21. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to combine Marusi’s teachings with Pyle because it is one solution, from a finite number of known, and predictable solutions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 148). Third, with respect to Marusi’s databases, Petitioner contends “[t]he combination of Marusi’s databases to manage the data in Pyle’s system uses a known technique to improve similar systems.” Pet. 21. In particular, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to combine Marusi’s database teachings with Pyle because Pyle teaches storing the same content in multiple, different representations.” Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1004, 9:64–10:21). Further, Petitioner argues that “[u]sing a database to store and manage multiple representations of the same data, or even to simply store voluminous data for retrieval, was an extremely well-known and common application of databases.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 149). Additionally, Dr. Reader opines that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the teachings of Pyle and Marusi were complementary, and therefore would have been motivated to combine Pyle with Marusi to enhance the efficiency of generating, storing, and delivering multimedia content tailored to the capabilities of particular playback devices.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 150.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Patent Owner that Petitioner and Dr. Reader fail to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pyle generates a top level index file by placing a manifest file in memory for transmission to a client device. Pet. 35; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 184. “Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little or no weight.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“Consolidated TPG”), 40–41, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (citing Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Here, there is no explanation or reason given for Petitioner’s assertion or Dr. Reader’s testimony and the connection, if any, is not otherwise apparent. Further, aside from Dr. Reader’s unexplained position, Petitioner has not pointed us to any evidence of record supporting the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that placement of a file in memory for transmission teaches generating the file as recited in limitation 1[f]. Accordingly, without any explanation whatsoever, the record is without a sufficiently supported basis upon which to make that finding, resulting in a failure of proof by Petitioner with respect to claim 1.11 10 We also note that Petitioner’s Reply does not seek to add a new argument for our consideration; rather, Petitioner’s Reply asserts, albeit incorrectly, that the argument was raised in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 15. 11 Although Petitioner’s Reply sets forth several arguments in response to other arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Response, those additional arguments do not address to this aspect of limitation 1[f]. See, e.g., Pet. c. Dependent Claims 4, 5, 8–10, and 14 Petitioner contends that the combination of Pyle and Marusi would have rendered the subject matter of claims 4, 5, 8–10, and 14 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 36–41. Claims 4, 5, 8–10, and 14 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, include limitation 1[f], as discussed above. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, Petitioner’s analysis of these claims suffers from the same deficiency.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 9,998,515 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,998,515
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.