- PTAB · Oct 20, 2016 · IPR2015-01047 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied VirnetX’s rehearing request, rejecting its real-party-in-interest arguments and finding the challenged claims remained unpatentable based on the Petition and Kiuchi.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Paper 82, 8. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Even assuming that Petitioner, in fact, “admitted that the US Feeder and the Cayman Feeder are ‘controlling shareholders’ of the Mangrove Petitioner,” as Patent Owner asserts, Patent Owner does not demonstrate persuasively that Petitioner also “admitted” that the “US Feeder and the Cayman Feeder” exerted control over the filing or preparation of the Petition. Nor does Patent Owner provide sufficient evidence demonstrating such control.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner
“1003 is entitled to no weight and reverse its findings of unpatentability that improperly rely on Exhibit 1003.” Paper 82, 14. Reference to Exhibit 1003 in the Decision was made in conjunction with the Petition in describing the Kiuchi disclosure with respect to claim features. Decision 5. We note that Exhibit 1003 merely confirms what is already apparent in the Petition and/or the Kiuchi reference itself (both of which are also relied upon in consideration of the Kiuchi reference with respect to claim features). Hence, to the extent that any modifications might have been made to the relevant portions of Exhibit 1003, we conclude that such alleged potential modifications (if any) are of insubstantial relevance in view of the fact that analysis of the Petition and the Kiuchi reference itself (without reliance on Exhibit 1003 in this regard) indicate that Petitioner has met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 6–8, and 12–14 of the ’151 patent are unpatentable, as indicated in the Decision. See, e.g., Decision 1-4, 6-24, and 26-38. Reference to Exhibit 1003 in the Decision was also made in the Petition as corroboration that RFC documents are “publications [that] are prepared and distributed,” “published and widely distributed” for “a period for others to provide comments on the document,” “can be obtained from a number of Internet hosts using . . . document-retrieval systems,” and contain a date “in the top right corner of the first page of the document.” Decision 25. Such testimony merely corroborates what is already clear on its face. For example, the fact that RFC documents are prepared and distributed, are for others to provide comments, are published on a specific date, and that the top right corner of such documents specify a date is clear on simple inspection of the RFC document itself. Therefore, we determine that the importance of any alleged modifications to Dr. Guerin’s testimony confirming what is already apparent on its face is of insubstantial importance. Also, Patent Owner does not demonstrate sufficiently that any modifications were, in fact, made to Dr. Guerin’s testimony that RFC documents are published on a specific date and that the top right corner of such documents specify a date.” slip op. at 6
NonePatents in suitUS 7,490,151 - PTAB · Oct 19, 2016 · IPR2016-00379 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and declined to institute review of claims 1–6 under § 325(d), finding substantially the same art and arguments had been presented previously.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Petitioner relies primarily on the same prior art that the examiner relied on during examination. See Dec. 9 (noting Petitioner and examiner both relied on Van Lommen1). Because, under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), we have discretion to reject a Petition if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office,” Petitioner has not established that we abused our discretion in denying the Petition because substantially the same prior art was previously before the Office. See § 325(d) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,545,040 - Sandisk Corp. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01021 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 16, 17, 24, 30, and 31 are unpatentable as obvious over Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“1. “Rank” In the Decision to Institute, we construed the term “rank” as “a block or area that is created using some or all of the memory chips on a memory module.” Dec. to Inst. 8–9. In their papers, neither party challenged our constructions of these claim terms. Thus, for the term “rank,” we see no reason to alter the construction of this claim term as set forth in the Decision to Institute as recited above, and we incorporate our previous analysis for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“2. All Other Claim Terms We determine that no explicit construction is necessary for any other terms in the challenged claims. B.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“would understand basic memory and data communication concepts, with a bachelor’s degree in any of electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or related field. Course work for one of ordinary skill in the art would have included a course on computer organization, principles of digital design, or computer architecture. One of ordinary skill in the art would also have around one year of experience related to computer memory systems. For example, such experience may include experience in DRAM memory technology and related industry standards such as JEDEC standards for DRAM memories and memory modules. Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Carl Sechen, Ph.D. (“Dr. Sechen”), testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’536 Patent would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering, at least two years of professional experience in the design of memory systems, familiarity with the latest JEDEC standard specifications for memory devices and modules, and familiarity with the latest DRAM (dynamic random access memory) memory devices widely available in the market. Ex. 2001 ¶ 14. Dr. Sechen further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have design proficiency in memory modules comprising DDR memory technology, such as memory modules with JEDEC standard DDR SDRAM (synchronous DRAM) devices. Id. ¶ 15. Based on our review of the ’536 Patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’536 Patent and cited prior art, we conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’536 Patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or related field, and at least one year of work experience, including familiarity with computer memory systems and related industry standards such as JEDEC standards for DRAM memories and memory modules. We further note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). D.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“To testify as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather must be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding a district court’s ruling to allow an expert to provide testimony at trial because the expert “had sufficient relevant technical expertise” and the expert’s “knowledge, skill, experience, training [and] education . . . [wa]s likely to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence”); Mytee Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite admission that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art). As noted above, Dr. Jagannathan has designed and implemented hardware virtual memory caches, and researched theoretical performance measures of various cache coherency protocols, and has experience in the design of memory systems. We find that Dr. Jagannathan is qualified sufficiently to testify about memory systems and memory modules. E.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 8,081,536 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,081,536 - Sandisk Corp. v. Netlist, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01020 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 17, 22, 24, 26, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly; claims 15, 16, 31, and 32 were not shown unpatentable over Takeda and JEDEC.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s position. First, the claim language does not recite any physical or structural connection, rather, only “electrically coupling.” Pet. Reply 3, 8–9. In addition, the specification of the ’150 patent does not define explicitly the term “selectively electrically coupling.” Therefore, as in IPR2014-00882 and IPR2014-01011, we refer to its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257. A technical dictionary, the IEEE Dictionary,4 defines “electrical coupling” as “[e]lectrical charges in conductors of a disturbed circuit formed by electrical induction.” Ex. 3001. The IEEE Dictionary explains that “[s]ince the ratio of a conductor’s electrostatic charge to the potential difference between conductors (required to maintain that charge) is the general definition of capacitance, electrical coupling is also called capacitive coupling.” Id. The IEEE Dictionary defines” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Based on our review of the ’150 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’150 patent and cited prior art, we conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’150 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or related field, and at least one year of work experience, including familiarity with computer memory systems and related industry standards such as JEDEC standards for DRAM memories and memory modules. We further note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). D. Declarant Testimony” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“To testify as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather must be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding a district court’s ruling to allow an expert to provide testimony at trial because the expert “had sufficient relevant technical expertise” and the expert’s “knowledge, skill, experience, training [and] education . . . [wa]s likely to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence”); Mytee Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite admission that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art). As noted above, Dr. Jagannathan has designed and implemented hardware virtual memory caches, and researched theoretical performance measures of various cache coherency protocols, and has experience in the design of memory systems. We find that, although Dr. Jagannathan may be less experienced than Dr. Sechen in the area of memory module design, he is nonetheless qualified sufficiently to testify about memory systems and memory modules. E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 15, 16, 31, and 32 in view of Takeda” slip op. at 14
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“We have reviewed the parties’ contentions on this issue, and exercise our discretion to determine that Petitioner’s Reply and the Jagannathan Supplemental Declaration will not be excluded. We find that, although they may be “inartfully” drafted, the first Jagannathan declaration and Petition sufficiently outlined Petitioner’s position on the function of the chip select signal, namely, that the chip select signal was not itself the logic signal enabling operation of bit-switches. We further find that Petitioner’s Reply and the Supplemental Jagannathan Declaration did not present an entirely new rationale of unpatentability based on Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly. Cf. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming Board’s exclusion of reply brief and declaration that changed unpatentability theory to “an entirely new rationale”). Moreover, there is no dispute that Patent Owner was aware of Petitioner’s position by no later than the Jagannathan deposition, which preceded Patent Owner’s Response by ten days. Patent Owner could have addressed Petitioner’s chip select signal contention, procedurally or substantively, in its Response, but chose to raise the issue only after Petitioner filed its Reply and Supplemental Jagannathan Declaration. Accordingly, Patent Owner had notice of Petitioner’s position and an opportunity to refute that position in its Response.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,881,150 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,881,150 - Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2016 · IPR2015-00195 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Steuben Foods’ rehearing request, leaving claims unpatentable over the Biewendt-based combination because the evidence supported the Board’s obviousness conclusion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The requirements for rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision,” and that “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” We determine that we did not misapprehend the evidence and arguments of record supporting our conclusion of obviousness based on Biewendt, and for the reasons that follow, Patent Owner’s request for rehearing is denied. .” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Second, Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate error in our consideration of Dr. Heldman’s unequivocal testimony—based on his studying of clean room technology for 40 years—that he expected that Biewendt’s sterilization machine would be kept above atmospheric pressure based on its description as a “clean room.” FWD, 29; see generally Ex. 2055, 146:3–157:19. Indeed we accorded the testimony of both Dr. Heldman and Dr. Sharon the weight that was appropriate in view of the arguments and evidence of record in the trial.1 As to Patent Owner’s argument that this was a “new position” not presented in the Petition or the accompanying declaration, we note that Dr. Heldman was merely responding to questions posed by Patent Owner’s counsel during his deposition, rather than injecting a new theory of his own accord. See, e.g., Ex. 2055, 147:13–14 (“Q. Are all clean rooms overpressured? A. That's the only design that I know.”). Dr. Heldman’s testimony is consistent with the statement in the Petition “that the entire sterilization machine of Biewendt is maintained under positive pressure to prevent contamination from the” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“argument that we “overlooked the fact that the cited passage in ZFL says that the “fully enclosed system, which is ventilated by sterile air at a slight overpressure, is free of unsterile transport media that may get into the system and works with packages and lids which are sterile on all sides.” Req. Reh’g 4 (citing Ex. 1010, 298). Specifically, that “ZFL and Buchner are consistent with Biewendt in explaining that that those portions of the machine downstream of the sterilization chamber are kept at a pressure above atmospheric in order to ensure sterility during the filling and sealing process.” Id. at 5. Patent Owner, however, did not previously present this interpretation of ZFL and Buchner, and a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present such new arguments. Moreover, contrary to Patent Owner’s new argument, these references plainly indicate that the “fully enclosed system” and the “entire plant” of the Bosch system is subject to a “slight overpressure.” Ex. 1010, 298; Ex. 1011, 27. As such, we find no basis in the record to conclude that we overlooked any persuasive evidence suggesting that only those portions of the Bosch system downstream of the sterilization machine are subject to overpressure.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 6,475,435 - Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00908 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9, 11–22, 24–34, and 36–38 are unpatentable, and the motion to amend is denied, because Stevenson anticipates the claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends that the relevant field is more specific and narrower than filter capacitors and requires knowledge of electromagnetic interference (EMI) filtering and implantable medical devices (IMDs) and that Petitioner’s declarant lacks such knowledge. Prelim. Resp. 27–30. On the present record, we determine a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, chemistry, and/or physics, along with several years of relevant applied research or industry work experience in the field of filter capacitors, including electromagnetic interference (EMI) filtering and implantable medical devices (IMDs). Our conclusion is supported by Petitioner’s asserted prior art references, which disclose filter capacitors for electromagnetic interference (EMI) filtering and implantable medical devices (IMDs). Ex. 1002, 1:17–24; Ex. 1003, 1:9–14; Ex. 1004, 1:12–21. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect the level of skill in the art). On the present record and based upon the stated qualifications of Petitioner’s declarant, Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 2–5; Ex. 1008, we consider Petitioner’s declarant qualified to opine from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art regarding Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Wolf’s ground plates 132, 134, and 136 were known alternatives for providing conductive coupling between the interior and peripheral edge of a component in a capacitor assembly. Ex. 1007 ¶ 47; Ex. 1003, 9:17–21, 5:62–6:11, 12:40–61, Figs. 20 and 21; Ex. 1004, 3:64–4:3, 6:66–7:10, 8:38– 42, Fig. 5. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Galvagni that substituting Wolf’s ground plates for the ground plane of Brendel provides the predictable result of creating a path to ground for the filtering of unwanted signals from the terminal pin of a feedthrough assembly. Ex. 1007 ¶ 48; Ex. 1004, 4:48–56, 7:11–16, 8:28–32; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976))). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute Wolf’s ground plates for Brendel’s ground plane to avoid manufacturing complexity. Ex. 1007 ¶ 46. More particularly, the unrebutted testimony of Mr. Galvagni establishes that ground plates having a flat profile, as disclosed in Wolf, are more readily manufactured than a ground plane that needs to be sputtered or plated into a small hole for receiving a ground pin, as disclosed in Brendel. Ex. 1007 ¶ 49; compare Ex. 1003, 7:22–32, 12:40–61, Fig. 21 (showing ground plane 430 that has been sputtered into counter-bored hole for receiving ground pin), with Ex. 1004, 9:53–65, 10:19–24, 10:35–40 (describing steps S104 and S114 for forming flat conductive layers). Thus, the evidence establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have seen a benefit” to making the substitution proposed by Petitioner. KSR, 550 U.S. at 424.” slip op. at 24
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“Based on the foregoing, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevenson discloses every element of the challenged claims, arranged as set forth in the claims. See Connell v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.”). Patent Owner does not present any persuasive argument or objective evidence to refute Petitioner’s showing that claims 1–9, 11–22, 24–34, and 36–38 of the ’076 patent are anticipated by Stevenson. See Paper 13. 3 The identification of this layer by the identifier 282 in Figure 71 appears to be a typographical error. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9, 11–22, 24–34, and 36–38 of the ’076 patent are anticipated by Stevenson.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based on the foregoing, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevenson discloses every element of the challenged claims, arranged as set forth in the claims. See Connell v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.”). Patent Owner does not present any persuasive argument or objective evidence to refute Petitioner’s showing that claims 1–9, 11–22, 24–34, and 36–38 of the ’076 patent are anticipated by Stevenson. See Paper 13. 3 The identification of this layer by the identifier 282 in Figure 71 appears to be a typographical error. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9, 11–22, 24–34, and 36–38 of the ’076 patent are anticipated by Stevenson.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,035,076 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,035,076 - ZTE USA, Inc. v. Saint Lawrence Communications LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 14, 2016 · IPR2016-00705 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Ozawa did not show the required comparison of pitch prediction errors across signal paths, and the obviousness grounds did not cure that deficiency.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). We have reviewed the Petition and supporting declaration of Dr. Johnson, and these materials do not contain adequate support for Petitioner’s assertion that Ozawa discloses the “a selector for comparing the pitch prediction errors calculated in said at least two signal paths” limitation of claim 1, or the “comparing the pitch prediction errors calculated in said at least two signal paths” limitation of claim 55. Petitioner asserts that “vector selector 22 selects one of the candidate code vectors and one of the gain code vectors that minimize the distortion [i.e., pitch prediction error].” Pet. 18. Petitioner, however, does not cite persuasive evidence that Ozawa discloses calculating the distortion of a pitch codevector in each of at least two signal paths, or that Ozawa’s vector selector 22 performs a comparison between distortions calculated in at least two signal paths. See Pet. 17–19, 37–40, 58. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Johnson, testifies that vector selector 22 performs one type of comparison “during mode 1, 2, or 3,” and a different type of comparison “during mode 0.” See Ex. 1036 ¶ 98 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:21–40). Dr. Johnson, however, does not offer persuasive testimony or evidence that Ozawa discloses a comparison between distortions (i.e., pitch prediction errors) that were calculated in two different modes (i.e., signal paths). See Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 96–101, 145–147. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has not made an adequate showing that Ozawa discloses the “a selector for comparing the pitch prediction errors calculated in said at least two signal paths” limitation of claim 1, or the “comparing the pitch prediction errors calculated in said at least two signal paths” limitation of claim 55. Accordingly, the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its anticipation challenge to independent claims 1 and 55. For the same reasons, the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its anticipation challenge to dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 56, 59, and 62, all of which depend from either claim 1 or claim 55. 3.” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“is . . . used for selecting a single path used for the computation of the codevector distortions” (i.e., the Petitioner-identified pitch prediction error).” Prelim. Resp. 27. “In other words, Ozawa does not calculate pitch prediction errors for subframes for each of the different modes [paths] and select the mode [path] with the lowest calculated pitch prediction error,” as required by independent claims 1 and 55. Id. (emphasis added). On this record, we find Patent Owner’s argument to be persuasive.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Obviousness of Claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 60 over Ozawa, G.729, and/or Ordentlich Claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 60, all depend from either claim 1 or claim 55, and Petitioner’s obviousness arguments regarding these claims all rely on Petitioner’s assertion that Ozawa discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 55. See Pet. 24, 27, 35, 41– 60. Petitioner does not argue that G.729 and Ordentlich individually or collectively cure the deficiencies discussed above in Petitioner’s argument with respect to claims 1 and 55. See id. Accordingly, the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on its obviousness challenges to dependent claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 60.” slip op. at 16
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,260,521 - The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. / Apple Inc. et al. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01047 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6–8, and 12–14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kiuchi; the Board also addressed obviousness grounds but did not need to rely on the additional references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Claim 1 recites a DNS request. The DNS request is “sent by a client,” potentially “corresponds to a secure server,” and may result in any one of a return of an IP address of a nonsecure computer or the initiation of an encrypted channel between the client and the secure server. Claim 1 does not appear to recite any other specific features of the DNS request.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“We are cautioned by the Federal Circuit that, with respect to secondary considerations alleged by Patent Owner in response to a prima facie showing of obviousness, “the obviousness inquiry centers on whether ‘the claimed invention as a whole’ would have been obvious.” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., Appeal Nos. 2015-1038, 2015-1044, slip op. at 15 (Fed. Cir., July 19, 2016). Looking at the “claimed invention as a whole,” we note that claim 1, for example, recites a data processing device that determines whether an intercepted DNS request corresponds to a secure server, forwards the DNS request to a DNS function that returns an IP address of a nonsecure computer (when the intercepted DNS request does not correspond to a secure server), and automatically initiating an encrypted channel between the client and the secure server when the intercepted DNS request corresponds to a secure server. As previously discussed in the record, Kiuchi discloses these features, either taken separately or as a “whole.” Patent Owner does not indicate a portion of the “whole” of the claimed invention that Kiuchi supposedly does not disclose. Not having identified sufficiently a part of the “whole” of the claimed invention that Kiuchi does not disclose, we conclude that Kiuchi discloses the “whole” of the claimed invention. Therefore, Patent Owner fails to show a nexus to its evidence of secondary considerations. While Patent Owner argues that DARPA-sponsored entities were supposedly unable to provide “the ease of use of the solutions provided in the claimed inventions of the ’151 patent,” Patent Owner does not demonstrate persuasively and with credible evidence that Kiuchi, for example, was also unable to provide “the ease of use of the solutions provided in the claimed inventions of the ’151 patent.” As previously discussed, Kiuchi appears to have succeeded in providing such solutions.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“preponderance of the evidence that RFC 1034 or [Rescorla] qualifies as a ‘printed publication.’” PO Resp. 40. The determination of whether a given reference qualifies as a prior art “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). On its face, RFC 1034 is a dated “Request for Comments” from the “Network Working Group,” discussing generally known methods for responding to a query from a client. Ex. 1005, 4. On its face, Rescorla is a dated “Internet-Draft” from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and described as a “draft document[] valid for . . . six months.” Ex. 1004, 1. Moreover, RFC 1034 explicitly states that “[d]istribution of this memo is unlimited.” Ex. 1005, 1. These indicia suggest that it is more likely than not that both documents were made available to the public (over the Internet). To bolster its showing, Petitioner provides evidence suggesting that RFC 1034 and Rescorla would have been accessible to the interested public. For example, Petitioner provides testimony of Dr. Roch Guerin who explains that “Request for Comment” documents or “RFCs’ or ‘Internet- Drafts’ are “publications [that] are prepared and distributed” and “can be obtained from a number of Internet hosts using . . . document-retrieval systems.” Ex. 1003, 46. Dr. Guerin also testifies that such documents are “published and widely distributed” for “a period for others to provide comments on the document” and that the “publication date of each RFC is contained in the RFC, . . . in the top right corner of the first page of the document [which is] the date it was released for public distribution on the Internet.” Ex. 1003, 44. Ex. 1003 47–48.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner Black Swamp was improperly joined to the 01047 proceeding” because “[e]xpert testimony was required in this case given the complexity of the technology at issue” and Black Swamp supposedly failed to file this allegedly “required” expert testimony. This argument was previously raised by Patent Owner and previously addressed. IPR2016-00167 Prelim. Resp. 7–10; IPR2016-00167 Dec. Inst. 4–5; Paper 38, 3–4; Paper 42, 2–3. We remain unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s re-iterated arguments for at least the reasons previously provided. In response to the question of whether Petitioner is required to rely on expert testimony for purposes of institution, Patent Owner now states that “the Federal Circuit” has held that “Petitioner has both the ‘initial burden of production’ and ‘the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” PO Resp. 40. Patent Owner, however, does not explain the relevance of this statement, even if assumed to be true, to whether or not a Petitioner is required to rely on expert testimony for purposes of institution. We remain unpersuaded by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 7,490,151 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,490,151 - PTAB · Aug 30, 2016 · IPR2014-01448 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its final written decision, leaving claims 1 and 7 unpatentable over He and Korodi under § 103.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73, concluding Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Specifically, we determined Petitioner had established by a preponderance of the evidence claims 1 and 7 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over He and Korodi (Final Dec. 11–25). In light of our determination that Petitioner had established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 7 of the ’279 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over He and Korodi, we took no position on whether the same claims are also obvious over the combination of the teachings and suggestions of Gustafsson and He (id. at 25).” slip op. at 3
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,671,279 - Google Inc. v. Better Food Choices LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 18, 2016 · CBM2015-00071 · APJ Minn Chung · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–10 are also indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2 because the specification lacks an algorithm for the claimed correlating function.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenOther
“As an initial matter, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has not met its burden of proof because Petitioner relies only on the ’115 patent and its prosecution history to argue unpatentability and does not present any other evidence, such as a witness. PO Resp. 6–7, 13–20. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has presented no evidence of unpatentability because the ’115 patent and its file history “shows the Patent Owner has a valid, issued patent and nothing more.” Id. at 7. We are not persuaded because, as discussed below, in this case we need to look only to the ’115 patent and its prosecution history to support a finding of unpatentability under §§ 101 and 112. See In re TLI Comm. LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613–14 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the patent alone is sufficient to sustain a finding of unpatentability under § 101).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“rebuttable presumption that the limitation is written in a means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). If, in addition to the word “means” and the functional language, the claim recites sufficient structure for performing the described functions in their entirety, the presumption is overcome, and § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. Id. “Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the functions in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure.” Id. at 1259–60.” slip op. at 28
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“with the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedents on step one analysis under the Alice framework. In step one of the Alice analysis, to determine whether the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry is to ask, considered in light of the Specification, whether “their character as a whole” is directed to an abstract idea, not, as Patent Owner contends, identifying the “core invention” of the patent. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Relying on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas,” the court in Enfish clarified that a relevant inquiry in step one of the Alice framework is to ask whether the “focus” of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358–59). In this inquiry, claims “directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer” are contrasted with claims “simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices” or “generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity.” See TLI, 823 F.3d at 612 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338). The Federal Circuit further clarified recently and described the first-stage inquiry as “looking at the ‘focus’ of the claims, their ‘character as a whole.’” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., No. 2015-” slip op. at 17
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“claims fail to recite any elements that individually or as an ordered combination transform the abstract idea of collecting and correlating information to provide personalized nutritional information of food products to shoppers into a patent-eligible application of that idea. It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. TLI, 823 F.3d at 613. Rather, the recited components must involve more than performance of “‘well- understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 5,841,115 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · NautilusPatents in suitUS 5,841,115
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.