- Permobil, Inc. v. Pride Mobility Products CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 31, 2014 · IPR2013-00411 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Goertzen and Hosino; claims 1 and 4–10 are also unpatentable as obvious over Goertzen and Mulhern ’420.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“plate”(claim 1) In the Decision to Institute, we concluded that no express construction of “a forward-extending front arm rigidly extending from the mounting plate” was necessary. Dec. to Inst. 7–8. Neither party contests that conclusion, and nothing since our Decision to Institute indicates it should be changed. We maintain our conclusion that no express construction of “a forward-extending front arm rigidly extending from the mounting plate” is necessary.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Figures 3B depicts mounting plate 56 relative to drive wheel axis A-DW. However, the ’343 patent also discloses that: for conventional configurations having a motor that is perpendicular to the drive wheel axis (and requiring a right angle gearbox, which is not shown in the figures), the motor swings about the gearbox output shaft to impart motion to the front caster arm, as for example shown in U.S. Pat. No. 6,129,165. Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 20–25 (emphasis added). Figure 9 of the ’165 patent is reproduced below: Figure 9 depicts a side view of a power wheelchair according to the ’165 patent. The ’343 Patent describes motor 80 of Figure 9 as “perpendicular to the drive wheel axis” 24. As can be seen by a comparison of the figures, motor 80 of Figure 9 of the ’165 patent is oriented differently from mounting plate 56 of Figure 3B of the ’343 patent. Thus, the ’343 patent uses “perpendicular to the drive wheel axis” to refer to orientations other than the orientation of mounting plate 56 in Figure 3B.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill in the art required at least three years of experience specific to obstacle-traversing and curb-climbing systems and suspensions, as Patent Owner contends. The problems identified by Patent Owner and the skills required—e.g., “analysis of the various forces and moments,” “understanding of moment arms,” “understand[ing] the effects on moments and forces,” (PO Resp. 28–29)— are within the ordinary skill of a person with an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering. Moreover, we note that the named inventor of the ’343 patent—James Mulhern—testified, in a related reexamination, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had only “a B.S. in mechanical engineering or equivalent, or at least 3 years of experience in the field of designing powered wheelchairs for personal mobility.” Ex. 1026 ¶ 10 (emphasis added). Based on our review of the technology claimed in the ’343 patent and the description of the powered wheelchair set forth in the specification, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had either (1) an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or an equivalent degree; or (2) at least three years of experience designing powered wheelchairs for personal mobility.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“deceleration, or doing any of the engineering that, according to him, would be necessary to compensate for the reduced stability caused by a lower pivot. PO Resp. 19–23. The question before us, however, is not whether Dr. Richter did the engineering necessary to combine the prior art into a functional prototype, but whether doing so would have been within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. In that regard, we credit Dr. Richter’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to change various other parameters in order to achieve a stable version of the claimed invention. Ex. 2004, 185:23–186:14. Patent Owner asserts that the proposed modification is anything but routine (PO Resp. 23–25), but does not explain why such calculations would not have been within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has articulated sufficiently a reason with rational underpinnings for for combining the teachings of Goertzen and Hosino to achieve the wheelchair recited in the challenged claims.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,408,343 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,408,343 - Permobil, Inc. v. Pride Mobility Products CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 31, 2014 · IPR2013-00407 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 are unpatentable under § 103: claims 1, 4–8, and 11–13 over Goertzen and Hosino; claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 over those references and Schaffner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“mounted to the frame such that the arm is capable of rotating about a pivot axis.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 47–48 (“A suspension arm 224 is pivotally mounted to the frame 3 at pivot 224A.”)). Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s proposed construction “is vague because, when read in context of the rest of the claim language, it is unclear whether ‘a pivot axis’ in the construction is the recited ‘arm pivot axis’ or some different axis.” Prelim. Resp. 18. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument because each of claims 1 and 7 specifies that the arm is pivotably mounted to the frame “at an arm pivot axis.” However, we also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the patentee intended to give “pivotably mounted to the frame” a meaning other than its plain and ordinary meaning. Apart from the claims, the ’598 patent does not use the term “pivotably mounted,” and the portion of the ’598 patent cited by Petitioner describes a suspension arm as “pivotally mounted,” not “pivotably mounted.” Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 47–48. Thus, we conclude that “pivotably mounted to the frame” does not require express construction. slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill in the art required at least three years of experience specific to curb-climbing systems, as Patent Owner contends. The problems identified by Patent Owner and the skills required—e.g., “analysis of the various forces and moments,” “understanding of moment arms,” “understand[ing] the effects on moments and forces,” (PO Resp. 29–30)—are within the ordinary skill of a person with an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering. Moreover, we note that the named inventor of the ’598 patent—James Mulhern—testified, in a related reexamination, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had only “a B.S. in mechanical engineering or equivalent, or at least 3 years of experience in the field of designing powered wheelchairs for personal mobility.” Ex. 1028 ¶ 10 (emphasis added). Based on our review of the technology claimed in the ’598 patent and the description of the anti-tip systems for powered vehicles set forth in the specification, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had either (1) an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or an equivalent degree; or (2) at least three years of experience designing powered wheelchairs for personal mobility.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner also faults Dr. Richter for not analyzing declines or deceleration, or doing any of the engineering that, according to Dr. Richter, would be necessary to compensate for the reduced stability caused by a lower pivot. PO Resp. 19–24. The question before us, however, is not whether Dr. Richter did the engineering necessary to combine the prior art into a functional prototype, but whether doing so would have been within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. In that regard, we credit Dr. Richter’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to change various other parameters in order to achieve a stable version of the claimed invention. Ex. 2004, 185:23–186:14. Patent Owner asserts that the proposed modification is anything but routine (PO Resp. 24–26), but does not explain why such calculations would not have been within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded Petitioner has articulated sufficiently a reason with rational underpinnings for combining the teachings of Goertzen and Hosino to achieve the wheelchair recited in the challenged claims.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,408,598 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,408,598 - PTAB · Dec 30, 2014 · IPR2013-00403 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1–27 and granted substitute claims 28 and 30, but denied substitute claims 29 and 31–33 for failure to meet amendment requirements or show patentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“1. No Broadening of Scope Proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner proposes claim 28 as a substitute for claim 2, claim 29 as a substitute for claim 11, claim 30 as a substitute for claim 13, claim 31 as a substitute for claim 22, claim 32 as a substitute for claim 24, and claim 33 as a substitute for claim 27. Mot. 1–6. Each claim includes all of the limitations of the corresponding claim for which it is a substitute, and adds additional limitations. No limitations are removed. Petitioner in its Opposition does not dispute Patent Owner’s assertion that the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the ’583 patent. See Mot. 8. We are persuaded that the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the original patent claims.” slip op. at 12
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“2. Written Description Support Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b), a motion to amend in an inter partes review must set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended,” and “[t]he support in an earlier-filed disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.”” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Term Proposed Interpretation “sync point” “a location in a data flow having data meeting a specified criteri[on]” “fine sync point” “a location in a data flow having data meeting a specified fine criteri[on] that is less restrictive than a coarse criteri[on]” “coarse sync point” “a location in a data flow having data meeting a specified coarse criteri[on] more restrictive than a fine criteri[on]” Mot. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 20–57). Petitioner in its Opposition does not argue that Patent Owner’s proposed interpretations are incorrect. We agree that Patent Owner’s proposed interpretations represent the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the Specification of the ’583 patent. The Specification discloses fine filter 560 and coarse filter 565, where “[t]he appliance designates the locations in the data flow which meet the fine and coarse filter criteria as fine and coarse sync-points, respectively,” and the filter criteria for coarse filter 565 are “more restrictive” than the filter criteria for fine filter 560. Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 20–38. The Specification also describes an example where “the filter criteri[on] declares a fine sync-point when the top five bits of the hashes are all zeros and a coarse filter criteri[on] which stores or compares hashes when the top ten bits of the hashes are all zeros” (i.e., the filter criterion for the coarse filter is more restrictive). Id. at col. 9, ll. 30–34. Accordingly, we interpret “sync point,” “fine sync point,” and “coarse sync point” as set forth above.” slip op. at 14
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Also, in the Decision on Institution, we interpreted various claim terms of the independent claims of the ’583 patent as follows: Term Interpretation “network memory” (claims 1, 12, device(s) in a network for and 23) storing information “appliance” (claims 1, 12, and 23) hardware and/or software elements applied to a particular use “instruction” (claims 1, 12, and a message or signal that 23) indicates, explicitly or implicitly, an action to perform See Dec. on Inst. 6–10. Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims depend from the original independent claims of the ’583 patent, and the parties do not dispute these interpretations in their papers. We do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from these interpretations. Accordingly, for purposes of assessing the proposed substitute claims, we incorporate our previous analysis of the three terms above. See id.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,370,583 - PTAB · Dec 30, 2014 · IPR2013-00402 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1–12 and granted the motion to amend for substitute claims 13 and 15, but denied it for claims 14 and 16–18 based on unmet amendment and eligibility requirements.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“In a motion to amend, the patent owner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate patentability of its proposed substitute claims over the prior art and, thus, entitlement to the claims. Idle Free at 7. This does not mean that the patent owner is assumed to be aware of every item of prior art known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. However, the patent owner should explain in its motion why the proposed substitute claims are patentable over not just the prior art of record, but also prior art not of record but known to the patent owner: A patent owner should identify specifically the feature or features added to each substitute claim, as compared to the challenged claim it replaces, and come forward with technical facts and reasoning about those feature(s), including construction of new claim terms, sufficient to persuade the Board that the proposed substitute claim is patentable over the prior art of record, and over prior art not of record but known to the patent owner. The burden is not on the petitioner to show unpatentability, but on the patent owner to show patentable distinction over the prior art of record and also prior art known to the patent owner. Some representation should be made about the specific technical disclosure of the closest prior art known to the patent owner, and not just a conclusory remark that no prior art known to the patent owner renders obvious the proposed substitute claims. Id. This includes addressing the basic knowledge and skill set possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art even without reliance on any particular item of prior art. Id. at 7–8; Toyota at 4–5. The petitioner then has the opportunity, in its opposition, to argue any deficiency in the patent owner’s motion and “come forward with specific evidence and reasoning, including citation and submission of any applicable prior art,” to rebut the patent owner’s position on patentability. Idle Free at 8.” slip op. at 16
- ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“1. No Broadening of Scope Proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner proposes claim 13 as a substitute for claim 4, claim 14 as a substitute for claim 3, claim 15 as a substitute for claim 8, claim 16 as a substitute for claim 7, claim 17 as a substitute for claim 12, and claim 18 as a substitute for claim 11. Mot. 1–6. Each claim includes all of the limitations of the corresponding claim for which it is a substitute, and adds additional limitations. No limitations are removed. Petitioner in its Opposition does not dispute Patent Owner’s assertion that the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the ’226 patent. See Mot. 8–9. We are persuaded that the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the original patent claims.” slip op. at 11
- 112 supportGranted
“2. Written Description Support Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b), a motion to amend in an inter partes review must set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended,” and “[t]he support in an earlier-filed disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.”” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that it would not have been obvious to incorporate the technique of Spring into a network data de-duplication system, as recited in the proposed substitute claims, because Spring “had very limited practical application in the network memory context.” Mot. 12. Patent Owner’s position is supported by the statement in McCanne ’376 that due to Spring’s small cache and first-in first-out replacement policy, “the efficacy of [Spring’s] approach is limited to detecting and exploiting communication redundancies that are fairly localized in time.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20; see Mot. 12. The proposed substitute claims, which identify sync points from which forward and backward memory comparisons are performed, are not limited to only recently transmitted data. Patent Owner also asserts that the specific combination of “fine and coarse filtering of hash values” and “forward and backward memory comparison” limitations recited in the proposed substitute claims represents a practical solution to the “tradeoff” that exists with data de-duplication systems, and is not solved by any of the prior art of record. Mot. 12–13. Specifically, Patent Owner states that there is a “tradeoff” between the size of an index and the likelihood that an indexed segment will be matched. Id. Spring uses a small fixed-size cache and small packets, and, thus, works best for only recently transmitted data. Id. By contrast, according to Patent Owner, the proposed substitute claims provide a practical solution to the tradeoff by operating at the byte-level and using a combination of fine and coarse filters to identify sync points from which forward and backward memory comparisons are performed. Id. Patent Owner’s explanations regarding the prior art and why the proposed substitute claims allegedly would not have been obvious are supported by the record and are persuasive. We also note that although Petitioner addresses the “fine and coarse filtering of hash values” limitations in its Opposition (arguing that they are taught by Hsu), Petitioner does not argue that Hsu—or any other reference— teaches or suggests the “forward and backward memory comparison” limitations. Nor does Petitioner propose any specific combination of references that allegedly would have rendered obvious the proposed substitute claims as a whole. Thus, Patent Owner’s assertions regarding key aspects of the prior art, such as Spring, essentially are unrebutted.” slip op. at 23
§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,312,226 - CB Distributors, Inc. / Dr Distributors, LLC v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 24, 2014 · IPR2013-00387 · APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 12, 15–26, and 33–38 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 33, 35, 37, and 38 as anticipated by Liu; the specified remaining claims as obvious over Hon ’494 and Liu.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–12, 15–26, and 33–41 of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,944 B2 (Ex. 1001) (“the ’944 patent”). The previous Patent Owner, Ruyan Investment (Holdings) Limited,1 did not file a preliminary response. We determined that the information presented in the Petition demonstrated that there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–12, 15–26, and 33–38, but not claims 39–41, of the ’944 patent, as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, or both. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted this proceeding on December 30, 2013, to review whether claims 1–12, 15–26, and 33–38 are unpatentable on the following grounds. Reference(s) Basis Claims Challenged Liu (Ex. 1019)2 § 102 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 33, 35, 37, and 38 Hon ’494 (Exs. 1008/1009)3 § 103 1–4, 8–12, 15–26, 33, 34, 36, and 38” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We decline, however, to read limitations that are not recited into the claims. While we read claims in view of the Specification, we do not read limitations from embodiments in the Specification into the claims. Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir 2014) (citing Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Our reviewing court “has expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Hill-Rom Servs., 755 F.3d at 1371–72 (quoting Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“At least one dictionary definition provided by Patent Owner mirrors the dictionary definition cited in our Decision to Institute. Dec. to Inst. 11 (citing Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 1051 (1995) (defining “porous” as “permeable by water, air, etc.” or “full of pores”)). Exhibit B attached to Mr. Sheehan’s Declaration provides several definitions for “porous” as presented in the Free Online Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/porous). That dictionary defines “porous” to mean, among other definitions, “having pores,” “[a]dmitting the passage of gas or liquid through pores or interstices,” or “permeable to water, air, or other fluids.” Ex. 2001, Ex. B. The other dictionary cited by Mr. Sheehan provides definitions for “porous” that include “containing minute interstices through which water, air, etc., may pass.” Id. at Ex. C (providing an on-line Oxford English Dictionary). While both dictionaries define “porous” to include the definition of “full of pores,” both dictionaries also include less limiting definitions. Id. at Exs. B, C. We do not agree with Patent Owner or Mr. Sheehan that the broadest reasonable construction of “porous” is limited to “full of pores or interstices into which liquid or gas is absorbed or defused.” PO Resp. 26; Ex. 2001 ¶ 29. Rather, as discussed in our Decision to Institute, we interpret “porous,” consistent with its ordinary meaning and how it is used the Specification, to refer to a component that includes pores and is permeable to liquid, i.e., admits passage of air or liquid through pores or interstices. Dec. to Inst. 11. A component that includes such pores has the ability to “absorb” liquid in the pores, consistent with disclosures in the Specification, regardless of whether the porous component has a few pores or is full of pores, such as in the case of a foam. Ex. 1001, 6:30–34; 7:3–7.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“narrowly as Patent Owner suggests. Rather, we consider whether Liu describes (i) an atomizing chamber that runs through, i.e., inside and along the length of, the atomizer and its electric heating rod, such that (ii) atomization occurs along (i.e., runs through), the length of the chamber. Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Figure 2 of Liu depicts (i) an atomizing chamber inside heater housing 24 that runs through, i.e., inside and along the length of, heater housing 24 and its electric heating rod (i.e., rod and heater wire 26). Pet. 18–20, 24, 28 (citing Ex. 1019, Figs. 2, 5, 6:18–22, 7:16–19, 9:19–20). Petitioner also establishes that Liu describes (ii) atomization occurring along the length of the chamber inside heater housing 24. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, it does not matter to our analysis that the upstream end of heater housing 24 in Liu is not “unblocked,” and it does not matter whether apertures 28 are “small.” Rather, we consider whether apertures in heater housing 24 in Liu allow liquid to come into the chamber such that atomization occurs along the length of the chamber, as required by claims 1 and 10.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,156,944 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,156,944 - PTAB · Dec 23, 2014 · IPR2014-00673 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of the decision declining institution on claims 23–27, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 36–40 because the Petition did not adequately explain its prior-art arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW In its request for rehearing, the dissatisfied party must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Upon a request for rehearing, the decision on a petition will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenInstitution denied merits
“declaration in the claim charts at pages 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, and 30 of the Petition. Pet. 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, and 30. The citations to the specific paragraphs of the Declaration appear in the claim chart, and take the form of “(See Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 105-107),” “(See Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 114–117),” “(See Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 143–146),” “(See . . . Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 154–157),” “(See Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 165–169),” “(See Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 178–180),” and “(See . . . Ex. 1001, ¶¶ 196–199).” Id. The Petition does not include a detailed explanation of the significance of Mr. Rosenblatt’s Declaration, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). See id. Nor does Mr. Rosenblatt’s testimony explain how the relied upon language in Digibox discloses the limiting access to unprotected data limitation. Based on Petitioner’s arguments in its Request for Rehearing, Petitioner alleges that we overlooked the evidence in Mr. Rosenblatt’s declaration because we did not incorporate the arguments and explanations from the cited paragraphs of Mr. Rosenblatt’s declaration into the Petition. Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, however, our rules state that arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Because the Petition did not include a detailed explanation of the significance of paragraphs 105–107, 114–117, 143–146, 154–157, 165–169, 178–180, and 196–199 of Mr. Rosenblatt’s declaration, and because arguments must not be incorporated by reference from Mr. Rosenblatt’s declaration into the Petition, we did not abuse our discretion in denying institution of inter partes review of claims 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 36, and 38 as anticipated by Digibox.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 6,314,409 - PTAB · Dec 23, 2014 · IPR2014-00672 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied IBM’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–11 and 13–21 because the petition did not adequately explain how Digibox disclosed the disputed limitation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Upon a request for rehearing, the decision on a petition will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“21, the Petition does not explain how Digibox’s disclosure of access rules that can designate who may unlock a DigiBox, together with Digibox’s disclosure of encrypted (i.e., protected) digital information contained in the Digibox, discloses limited or controlled access to an unprotected (i.e., unencrypted) form of the protected portions of the data, as required by claims 1 and 21. In effect, Petitioner’s arguments in the Request for Rehearing allege that we misapprehended the evidence in the Petition because we did not fit together Petitioner’s dispersed puzzle pieces of quotations and disclosures from Digibox. Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, however, our rules state that each petition must include a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence, and must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art relied upon. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4). The Petition does not include a detailed explanation of the significance of Digibox’s disclosure of access rules that can designate who can unlock the Digibox, and does not specify where the disputed limitations of claims 1 and 21 are found in Digibox. But, as we discussed above, even if Digibox did include sufficient disclosure, we do not see how the newly cited portions of Digibox meet the disputed limitations of claims 1 and 21. Thus, we did not abuse our discretion in denying institution of inter partes review of the claims based on Digibox.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“Contrary to Petitioner’s apparent invitation, the members of the Board deciding an institution matter do not, under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c), select themselves, and, similarly are not granted authority to select other Board members to decide the matter, upon request of a party or otherwise. See Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Instit., Case IPR2014-00319, slip. op. 2 n.1 (PTAB Dec. 12, 2014) (Paper 20) (expanded panel) (per curiam). As indicated in the Standard Operating Procedure, the Chief Judge, on behalf of the Director, may act to expand a panel on a “suggestion” from a judge or panel. BPAI SOP 1 at 1. The Standard Operating Procedure creates “internal norms for the administration of the Board” but “does not create any legally enforceable rights.” Id. Accordingly, we cannot grant Petitioner’s request for rehearing by an expanded panel. We further note that our application of 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3), 42.22(a)(2) and 42.104(b)(4) in the case before us is bound to the specific facts of this case, and is consistent with the application of these rules in the expanded panel decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC, Case IPR2014-00454 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12). II. DECISION ON REHEARING Petitioner’s request for rehearing is denied and request for panel expansion is dismissed.” slip op. at 6
NonePatents in suitUS 6,314,409 - Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. Checkfree CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 22, 2014 · CBM2013-00030 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract payment-intermediation concept implemented with generic computer functions.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“BACKGROUND On December 23, 2013, we entered a Decision to Institute a covered business method patent review, Paper 16 (“Dec. to Inst.”), of U.S. Patent No. 7,853,524 B2 (“the ’524 Patent”) on the grounds that claims 1–21 do not recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“terms “electronic bill” and “EBP” do not even appear in the specification, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner is attempting to recast abstract ideas recited in the ’524 Patent claims in a manner that requires machines or transformations. Pet. Reply 2, 6. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s construction arguments attempt to read into the claims features that are not recited in them. For example, although there is no EBP system mentioned in the claims, citing the testimony of its expert, Dr. John Kelly, Patent Owner argues that a payment request is captured through an automated interaction with a user over a telephone or is conveyed by transferring data to the EBP system over a data network from a computer. PO Resp. 21–22. As discussed below, we decline to alter any of the constructions we applied in our Decision to Institute.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Merchant credit limit associated with a payee Patent Owner contends that our construction of the “merchant credit limit associated with a payee” as the maximum amount of credit a merchant extends to a payer is contrary to the plain language of the claims because the limit is associated with the payee. PO Resp. 51. Our construction is consistent with the limit being associated with the payee, i.e., the party to whom the payment is made. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, “a value reflecting the credit limit used by the EBP system which is associated with a particular payee,” PO Resp. 52, reads into the claim an extrinsic EBP system not discussed in the specification. In addition, the value reflecting the credit limit is the amount of credit a payee, i.e., a merchant, extends to a payer. Claims 1, 11, and 21 each recite comparing a payment amount associated with the received request, i.e., the request received on behalf of the payer, to a merchant credit limit associated with the payee. The only credit limits described in the specification are limits on the amount of credit extended to a payer. Although the specification describes a merchant credit limit, it does not describe specifically such a limit associated with the payee. The specification describes comparing the payment amount to a merchant credit limit, and making the payment as an electronic payment or a service provider check, if the payment amount is under a specified amount. Ex. 1001, col. 5, l. 65–col. 6, l. 5. Any amount within the merchant’s (i.e., the payee’s) credit limit is added to the consumer’s (i.e., payer’s) monthly ACH balance, and any transaction can be compared to the consumer’s credit limit parameters stored in a database. Id. at col. 6, ll. 5–10. The specification also describes releasing the payment as a draft written on the consumer’s account, rather than the service provider’s account, if the payment amount exceeds the consumer’s, i.e., the payer’s, credit limit. Id. at col. 6, ll. 10– 16. Because the consumer’s credit limit described in the specification protects the service provider, id. at col. 5, ll. 35–37, 65–66, it is a limit associated with the service provider rather than the payee. Claims 1, 11, and 21, however, recite the merchant credit limit associated with the payee. Because each merchant may extend a different amount of credit to each customer, the merchant credit limit associated with the payee limitation appears to require the service provider computer to select a payment means based on comparing the requested payment amount to the amount of credit the merchant, i.e., the payee, extends to the payer. That is, the amount of the payment is compared to the payer’s credit limit with the payee. In any case, as discussed below, this limitation is not material to our determination of the issues under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 8
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“and 21 of the ’524 Patent recites a method or apparatus in which a service provider receives a request to pay a payee, selects a form of crediting the payee based on comparing the payer’s account number to the payee’s merchant account scheme and the payment amount to a merchant credit limit associated with the payee, and directs the payment to the payee in the selected form. Thus, each of the independent claims is drawn to a computer-implemented process or apparatus in which a third party intermediary, i.e., the payment service provider, receives a request to make payment, applies certain criteria to determine what form of payment to use, and then directs the payment to the payee in that form. In Alice, the Supreme Court considered claims that, on their face, were drawn to the fundamental economic concept of exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a third-party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk. The Court, concluded that, like the hedging in Bilski, the claims were drawn to an “abstract idea” beyond the scope of § 101. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355–57.1 In the ’524 Patent, the service provider intermediates payment between the payer and the payee, acting much like the third party intermediary in Alice. The payment service provider mitigates settlement risk by crediting the payee or issuing a check to the payee drawn on the service provider’s funds, or in other circumstances, issuing a draft drawn on the payer’s funds, i.e., determining the form of payments based on the comparisons recited in the claims. Ex. 1001, col. 5, l. 25–col. 6, l. 15. The computer implementation associated with comparing the account number and 1 In Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) the Court found upatentable, as abstract ideas, claims drawn to hedging against the financial risk of commodity price fluctuations where the claims recited the steps of initiating a series of financial transactions between commodity providers and consumers, identifying market participants with a counterrisk for the same commodity and initiating a series of risk balancing transactions between those market participants and the commodity provider. the credit limit are incidental to the fundamental economic concept of having a third party intermediate a settlement either by crediting the payee from the third party’s funds (as in a credit transaction) or from the payer’s funds (as when the amounts exceed the payer’s credit limit with the service provider). Thus, we conclude that each of independent claims 1, 11, and 21 is directed to an abstract concept.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 7,853,524 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 7,853,524 - Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. Checkfree CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 22, 2014 · CBM2013-00031 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract concept of modifying account numbers to match a payee’s format using generic computer implementation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“Claims 1 and 15 of the ’311 Patent are drawn to executing instructions on a computer. In response to receiving an account number in a format not expected by a payee, the instructions act to retrieve from a database a rule that causes the received account number to be altered into the expected format before transmitting the account number to the payee. Thus, claims 1 and 15 are directed to the abstract concept of comparing a received account number to a payee’s format, applying a rule, and modifying the account number in accordance with that rule to the expected format before transmitting it to the payee. As evidence that the computer is not a meaningful limitation and that the claims are drawn to an abstract concept, Petitioner cites testimony of inventor David Garrison demonstrating that the steps of the claimed invention could be performed manually. Pet. 12–16. (citing Ex. 1008, 175:25–180:14, 185:11– 189:25; Ex. 1009; Ex. 1010. Patent Owner’s argument that the claimed automatically performed method precludes the need for human intervention, PO Resp. 68, essentially concedes that the process could be performed manually. We conclude that the recitation of a computer in the method or system claims is not a meaningful limitation and does not change the abstract nature of the claimed subject matter. The limitations recited in claims 2–14, which depend from claim 1, and claims 16–20, which depend from claim 15, relate to the abstract concept recited in claims 1 and 15 and are not meaningful limitations that provide patent-eligible subject matter. See, e.g., claims 2 and 16, which recite receiving the consumer account number in association with the payment request. Thus, the method and system claims of the ’311 Patent are drawn to the abstract concept of establishing compatibility between account numbers by applying appropriate rules to modify an account number.” slip op. at 7
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptDecided for petitioner
“We also agree with Petitioner that, by transforming a consumer account number into a modified account number, the claims of the ’311 Patent do not cause a physical transformation of a data structure, as argued by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 48–49. As previously discussed, the claims of the ’311 Patent do not recite data structures that are physically transformed. In addition, Petitioner points out that Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. McEntee, testified that the claims of the ’311 Patent do not require any physical transformation. Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 2028, 472:19– 428:2). We further note that satisfying the machine-or-transformation test, by itself, is not sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible, as not all transformations or machine implementations infuse an otherwise ineligible claim with an inventive concept. DDR Holdings, LLC, 2014 WL 6845152, at *9. We conclude that altering an account number to be compatible with the requirements of a payee’s system, as recited in the claims of the ’311 Patent, is not the type of transformation that rises to the level of patent-eligible subject matter. Patent Owner contends that in our Decision to Institute we did not evaluate the claims as a whole to determine whether they contain additional substantive limitations that narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claims so that, in practical terms, they do not cover the full abstract idea itself. PO Resp. 61. According to Patent Owner, the claims include several concrete and tangible limitations that limit the use of the “putative abstract idea” to a specific application within an electronic bill payment system. Id. As discussed above, relying on intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, Patent Owner attempts to read into the claims structures that they do not recite. Independent claims 1 and 15 recite only executing instructions to receive an account number, applying a rule to alter the account number to an expected form, and transmitting the altered account number. The specification notes that the claimed steps can be implemented using a general purpose computer, or other processing device capable of executing programmed instructions. Ex. 1001, col. 3. ll. 58–65. Thus, the limitations recited in claims concerning the payment processor and the payment processor computer are generic computer limitations. Generic computer limitations do not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. DDR Holdings, 2014 WL 6845152, at *9.” slip op. at 12
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedOther
“of the rebuttal testimony of Petitioner’s expert Michael Shamos, Ex. 1021 (“Shamos Decl.”), as beyond the scope of the testimony of Patent Owner’s experts. Paper 40 (“Mot. to Exclude”). Petitioner identifies subject matter the challenged paragraphs of the Shamos Declaration rebut. Paper 41 (“Opp. to Mot. to Exclude”). In reaching our decisions in this proceeding, we do not cite or rely on the portions of the testimony in the Shamos Declaration that Patent Owner moves to exclude. Therefore, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,996,311 unpatentable§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 7,996,311 - Metavante Corporation / Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. Checkfree CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 22, 2014 · CBM2013-00032 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–60 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract intermediary function implemented with routine computer activity.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Petitioner’s expert Michael Shamos. Paper 41 (“Mot. to Exclude”). Petitioner opposes Patent Owner's Motion to Exclude on the basis that these statements Patent Owner moves to exclude are proper rebuttal to Patent Owner's experts. Paper 42 (“Opp. to Mot. to Exclude”). Our Final Written Decision does not cite or rely on any of the subject matter Patent Owner seeks to exclude. Therefore, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Claim 1 recites the single step of executing computer implemented instructions with one or more processors. Claim 1 recites that those instructions include ones in which the clearinghouse receives a payment request (or a request to add a payee to a payer’s pick list), accesses billing information stored in a database, identifies payee bill presentment information from the accessed information, and generates and transmits to the payer a notification of the bill presentment information.1 Although the one or more processors may also execute instructions to perform routine ancillary functions for the central clearinghouse to receive the request, access the database and transmit the information, there are no such instructions or structures recited in claim 1. Claim 1 of the ’749 Patent does not recite any structure for the bill presentment and payment central clearinghouse—nor does claim 1 recite any particular software instructions, any particular processors, any particular configuration or interconnection of the recited “one or more processors,” or any other structure to execute the claimed functions called for in the instructions. Thus, the bill presentment and payment central clearinghouse in claim 1 must be construed without structural limitations, other than being programmed to carry out the recited functions.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The ’749 Patent describes the payee-pick-list as a list of payees the user may plan to pay electronically and states that each user’s individual list is stored in the form of a database in a memory associated with the central clearinghouse station. Ex. 1001, col. 16, ll. 49–54. We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the payee-pick-list as a data structure merely because it is used directly by the programmed central clearinghouse computer system. PO Resp. 40. Claim 1 recites receiving a request to add a payee to a pick-list associated with the payer, but does not recite any limitations concerning the pick-list. The specification refers to a database known as a payee-pick-list that includes certain information such as payee identifiers, street addresses, cities, states, zip codes, phone numbers and consumer account numbers. Ex. 1001, col. 16, 61–65. Nothing in this list of common information associated with the payee requires any particular data structure. Thus, we do not import a data structure limitation into the construction of "payee-pick-list” or "pick-list."” slip op. at 7
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Id. Thus, the first step in our analysis is to consider whether the claims of the ’749 Patent recite a patent-ineligible concept. Patent Owner describes the central clearinghouse as a necessary intermediary between payers and payees interacting with each user station and handling EBPP interactions between thousands, if not millions, of such stations, which themselves are computers. Id. at 22. In Alice, the Supreme Court considered claims drawn to a method of exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a third-party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk and concluded that on their face, claims drawn to the concept of an intermediated settlement, like the hedging in Bilski, is an “abstract idea” beyond the scope of § 101. Id. at 2355–57.2 We conclude that the claims of the ’749 Patent, which are directed to a clearinghouse that acts as an intermediary between a payer and the payee by notifying the payer about payee bill presentment information, are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The steps recited in claim 1, and in each 2 In Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), the Supreme Court found unpatentable, as abstract ideas, claims drawn to hedging against the financial risk of commodity price fluctuations where the claims recited the steps of initiating a series of financial transactions between commodity providers and consumers, identifying market participants with a counter-risk for the same commodity and initiating a series of risk balancing transactions between those market participants and the commodity provider. of independent claims 20, 40, 59, and 60, are carried out by a clearinghouse that receives a request from a payer to provide payee information or add a payee to the payer’s pick-list. The claims recite receiving a request and are not limited to any particular number of such requests. The clearinghouse retrieves the payee information from a database and generates and transmits a responsive notification message to the payer. Thus, independent claims 1, 20, 40, 59, and 60 are drawn to the patent-ineligible concept of executing instructions in which an intermediary receives a request, retrieves information from a database, and transmits the information to the requester.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 7,792,749 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · BilskiPatents in suitUS 7,792,749
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.