• DBR Finance, Inc. v. Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00291 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–19 not unpatentable because Petitioner did not prove the proposed Whybrew–Strength combinations disclosed the claimed mesh panels with spaced holes.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We question, therefore, whether someone having an education in textile engineering or physics, but no experience in the field of hunting blinds, would be consistent with the level of skill portrayed by the ’535 Patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note that Petitioner’s expert’s experience, education, and qualifications are rooted in textiles, fibers and physics, and sophisticated subjects related thereto. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 14–20. But his deposition revealed that he has little or no experience in the field of hunting blinds. See Ex. 2038, 8–14.5 5 The same might be said of Patent Owner’s expert. See Ex. 2031, ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 1023, 16. However, our obviousness analysis leaned lightly, if at all, on her declarations and testimony.” slip op. at 12

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

    “1. Mesh Material In the Petition, Petitioner asks that “the term ‘mesh material’” be interpreted in accordance with “a plain and ordinary usage.” Pet. 25. Per Petitioner, the “plain and ordinary” meaning of the term “mesh material” is “a woven material of open texture with spaced holes therein.” Id. Per Petitioner, “[o]ther typical terms used to describe a mesh-like material” are “a screen material, or a netting material, which are believed to be synonyms.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that a mesh material would have an open texture with spaced holes therein. See PO Resp. 18. We find that Petitioner’s proposed construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s specification. See Ex. 1001. The drawings in the ’535 Patent depict the mesh material 26 as having an array of uniformly spaced circular holes forming a net-like structure (see id., Fig. 1A, 1B, 4, 9) or an array of uniformly spaced rectangular openings (see id. Fig. 8) forming a screen-like structure. The embodiments of the mesh material 26 listed in the ’535 Patent (e.g., a mesh banner material, scrims, a network of fibers, etc.) are materials having net-like or screen-like structures. See id. at 6:47–7:28.6” slip op. at 14

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

    “Our construction aligns with the claim language; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1001, 10:4–19. The independent challenged claims set forth “one or more panels of mesh material” and then set forth “said one or more panels comprising: a first side with a camouflage pattern; and a second side with a dark color coating.” Id. at 10:4–11. The recited “said one or more panels” corresponds to the previously recited “one or more panels of mesh material,” not panels comprising a material that was only a “mesh” prior to printing/coating. See id. Also, the independent challenged claims set forth that “the one or more panels of the mesh material define an outer surface of the camouflage structure.” See id. at 10:18–19, 1:23–24 (emphasis added). And the panel(s) defining a hunting blind’s outer surface would include the dark color coating. Our construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s specification; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1001. The ’535 Patent repeatedly describes the relevant panel material in the hunting blind (i.e., post printing/coating) as a mesh material. See id., Abst., 1:19–5:34, 6:47–7:28, 9:16–54, Figs. 1A, 1B, 9. The ’535 Patent expressly describes and depicts the mesh material 26 as including the camouflage pattern and the dark-color coating. See id. at 1:52–56, 3:24–25, 3:31–33, Figs. 1A, 1B. The ’535 Patent says that “panels” of this coated mesh material 26 “are used to form” a hunting blind. Id. at 3:22–26. The ’535 Patent says that “[m]esh material is presented for a hunting blind with a camouflage pattern printed on a first side and a second side with a color coating.” Id. at Abst. The ’535 Patent says that “mesh material of interwoven fabric is provided for a hunting blind including a camouflage pattern printed on a first side and a second side with a dark color coating.” Id. at 1:19–22; see also id. at 1:44–49. Our construction aligns with the ’535 Patent’s prosecution history; Petitioner’s proposed construction does not. See Ex. 1006. As mentioned above, throughout prosecution of the ’535 Patent, the same prior art material was mapped to the claimed panel(s) of mesh material. See Ex. 1006, 64–72, 122–106. The mapped-to prior art mesh material was described during prosecution as an “interwoven fabric” with “a pattern” printed on a first side and “a dark color coating” on a second side. Ex. 1006, 64; see also id. at 122. And the mapped-to prior art mesh material (i.e., which included not only the interwoven fabric but also the printed pattern and the dark color coating) had a “net-like structure” with an array of uniformly spaced “net holes” that are “not closed.” Ex. 2021, 4:1–5, see also id. at 2:58–3:6, 4:34–45, Figs. 1, 2a. Thus, we understand that claimed panel(s) of mesh material must have” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “However, Patent Owner does not bear the burden of proving Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes. Rather, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes. And Petitioner’s arguments that undermine Patent Owner’s position that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes, concurrently undermine Petitioner’s position that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes. Per Petitioner, “Strength is silent on whether visible holes exist in the fabric” (Pet. Reply 8) and “the Strength reference doesn’t discuss anything about holes” (Tr. 14). Petitioner’s expert testified that it was his “understanding that Strength is silent” on “whether or not there are holes.” Ex. 2038, 44. Petitioner contends that Strength’s silence about the presence/ absence of holes hinders Patent Owner from proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does not have holes. See Pet. Reply 8. We agree. But this same silence likewise hinders Petitioner from proving that Strength’s camouflage material 10 does have holes.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 11,399,535 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,399,535
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Power2b Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00325 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 were not shown unpatentable: the Keely–Geva combinations lacked sufficient reasoning to combine, and did not teach claimed movement in the third dimension.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Testimony cannot take the place of disclosure in a prior art reference, when that disclosure is required as part of the unpatentability analysis. See CTPG at 36. More specifically, the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide sets forth the following: Expert testimony, however, cannot take the place of a disclosure in a prior art reference, when that disclosure is required as part of the unpatentability analysis. For example, because “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the 8 For exhibits 1004 and 2025, we use the pagination added by the submitting party. 9 Although not relied on for independent claim 1, Kameyama also was cited in that Information Disclosure Statement that was initialed by the Examiner. Id. single prior art reference,” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a petitioner asserting anticipation cannot rely on its expert to supply disclosure of a claim element that is not expressly or inherently present in the reference. Similarly, in an obviousness analysis, conclusory assertions from a third party about general knowledge in the art cannot, without supporting evidence of record, supply a limitation that is not evidently and indisputably within the common knowledge of those skilled in the art. K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Furthermore, because an inter partes review may only be requested “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications,” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), expert testimony cannot take the place of disclosure from patents or printed publications. In other words, expert testimony may explain “patents and printed publications,” but is not a substitute for disclosure in a prior art reference itself. CTPG at 36. We, therefore, find that Dr. Bederson’s testimony (Ex. 1002 ¶ 92) does not remedy the deficiency in Geva’s disclosures. Petitioner has not shown that Geva teaches element 1[G].” slip op. at 49

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the complete record now before us, we maintain our determination in the Institution Decision (Inst. Dec. 8) that Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the 3 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness based on the complete record now before us. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art, except without the “at least” phrase. Our analysis and determinations herein, however, do not turn on which level of skill we adopt.” slip op. at 8

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Importantly, to prevail in its challenge to Patent Owner’s claims, Petitioner must demonstrate that the claims are unpatentable, and that burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012)); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). includes argument and evidence indicating clear reliance on Keely’s teachings of determining pen position, consistent with Patent Owner’s contentions. We further find that the Petition does not include Petitioner’s Reply arguments regarding Geva’s planar element. We conclude that the Petition does not set forth Petitioner’s proposed combination of Keely and Geva argued in the Reply and, therefore, the Reply includes improper, new argument. With respect to Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s Reply and Reply declaration should be disregarded (Sur-reply 3; Paper 33, 1), we need not reach that decision because, as discussed below (see §§ III.D.3.b–c) even upon consideration of Petitioner’s new Reply arguments, Petitioner does not demonstrate that claim 1 is unpatentable. To the extent Patent Owner has not fully explained its opposition to the Petition in its Patent Owner Response, Petitioner must demonstrate that the claims are unpatentable, and that burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. We had cautioned Patent Owner that arguments not raised in its Patent Owner Response “may be deemed waived.” Paper 8, 9. We determine that any such waiver is not appropriate here because the Petition does not include Petitioner’s newly raised, improper Reply arguments.” slip op. at 23

  • BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable

    “CTPG at 36. We, therefore, find that Dr. Bederson’s testimony (Ex. 1002 ¶ 92) does not remedy the deficiency in Geva’s disclosures. Petitioner has not shown that Geva teaches element 1[G]. For the reasons given, after consideration of the assertions and the evidence based on the complete record now before us, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that its combination of Keely and Geva teaches element 1[G] of claim 1.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 9,946,369 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,946,369
• Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2023 · IPR2022-00034 · APJ John G New · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to show claim 6 unpatentable because none of the seven asserted grounds established the required absence of an outer graft covering between the fibers and outer frame.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “November 2012 would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “We determine that, as the plain language of the claim term suggests, an “outer graft covering” must circumferentially cover some, or all, of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve. See Merriam-Webster, Cover, available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cover (last visited March 2, 2023) (defining “cover,” relevantly, as “something that is placed over or about another thing”). See Ex. 3004. Consequently, we understand an “outer graft covering” to be a structure, such as a cloth or fabric or other material, that circumferentially covers all or part of, the metallic outer frame. Importantly, because an outer graft covering must cover the external surface of the outer frame, we understand this claim term to mean that the cover must extend over (i.e., “cover”) not only the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, but must also cover the open spaces, or interstices, in the intervals between those struts and members. Consequently, we construe the limitation reciting “free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame” to mean that there can be no such outer graft covering present anywhere between the outwardly extending fibers and the metallic outer frame.” slip op. at 40

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, or otherwise provide any additional argument or evidence to demonstrate that the outer skirt of Levi does not constitute the outer graft covering prohibited by claim 6. Consequently, our initial determinations stand. Furthermore, our definition of outer graft covering herein as “a material or structure that circumferentially covers at least a portion of the outer surface of the prosthetic heart valve, such that both the struts and members of the metallic outer frame, as well as the 45 interstices between those struts and members, is covered by the outer graft covering” reinforces our prior conclusion that the outer skirt of Levi constitutes an outer graft covering that is prohibited by claim 6. We consequently conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden with respect to demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Levi teaches or suggests the limitation reciting “wherein the outer seal is free of an outer graft covering between the fibers and the outer frame.”” slip op. at 45

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Both the descriptions and Figure 22 of Spenser II show a cloth covering the proximal outer surface of the metallic outer frame of the prosthetic heart valve, including the spaces between the struts and members of the frame. Furthermore, the reference discloses that any fibers extending outwardly from the cloth arise from the surface of the cloth, and are not attached directly to the frame, as depicted in Figure 11 of the ’846 Specification. Thus, even were such fibers made of the same material as the cloth, which is not clear from the reference’s disclosure, the cloth would be between the surface-residing fibers and the metallic outer frame. We conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the sleeve-like cloth or fabric of Spenser II corresponds to an outer graft covering between its fibers and its outer frame, and such a covering would be between Spencer II’s surface fibers and its metallic outer frame. Such an outer graft cover is expressly prohibited by the language of claim 6, even if it and associated extending fibers are of the same material.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 10,966,846 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,966,846
• Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd v. BJ Energy Solutions, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · PGR2021-00103 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted ground; the Board found the prior art failed to establish key limitations and rejected the enablement and indefiniteness challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In reply, Petitioner argues that the ’764 patent’s control system is not complex as there are no detailed algorithms, logic, or software. Pet. Reply 4. Instead, the control system merely raises or lowers power of the pumps in accordance with the demand HHP of the job design. Id. (citing Ex. 1036, 97:15–98:18, 98:21–99:25, 100:1–101:25, 102:2–7, 115:4–9, 115:24–116:4, 116:17–22; Ex. 1001, 5:2–6, 6:36–7:7, 10:4–64). According to Petitioner, this “rudimentary control concept” does not necessitate the higher skill level proposed by Patent Owner. Id. Petitioner further notes that Dr. Adnan testifies that “a mechanical engineer who has worked in the industry developing programming and control systems could fall within this definition,” and the person of ordinary skill in the art “is ‘just a specifier.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 2003 ¶ 22; Ex. 1036, 161:21–164:18). Based on our review of the record before us, particularly the ’764 patent’s description and Dr. Adnan’s testimony, we agree with Petitioner that the ordinary level of skill in the art does not require the high level of specialized knowledge of control systems suggested by Patent Owner. Moreover, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the full record, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher is unqualified to serve as an expert in this proceeding. As noted above, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not required to have been a fracturing operator. Patent Owner’s proposed definition does not even require experience as a fracturing operator. See PO Resp. 20–21. Furthermore, Mr. Marscher testifies that he has extensive experience developing pumps for fracturing applications. Ex. 2027, 6:24–8:7. Mr. Marscher also testifies that he has experience with control systems relating to pumps and pumps units. Id. at 212:19–23. This testimony, as well as his declaration and curriculum vitae, show that Mr. Marscher has extensive education and experience in relevant fields. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–17; Ex. 1004. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher’s qualifications or experience provide reason to discount the weight associated with Mr. Marscher’s testimony.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In its Reply, Petitioner argues that the maximum power output value is the pump unit’s highest HHP output and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this value is the pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty. Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72, 123–124; Pet. 9–10; Ex. 1036, 64:17–67:13, 119:17–120:11, 124:7–24, 198:9–200:9, 221:8–222:15). However, even if Petitioner is correct that the “maximum power output value” is near or equivalent to a pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty, we are still not persuaded that the term “maximum intermittent power” should be tied to the “maximum power output value,” in conflict with the definition provided in the Specification. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is indefinite. Pet. Reply 3. For the reasons discussed below (see supra § II.I.1), we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the term “maximum intermittent power,” as defined in the Specification, is indefinite. Thus, based on the complete record before us, we maintain our prior construction of “maximum intermittent power” for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “3. Additional Terms We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,815,764 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,815,764
• Equipmentshare.Com Inc. v. Ahern Rentals, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 10, 2022 · IPR2021-00834 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 7–13, and 17–20 were not proven unpatentable because the cited combinations did not establish the required all-user lockout or remote starting limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that expert testimony that closely mirrors the language in a petition, without more, may provide little help to the Board as fact finder, because the expert fails to fill his or her role to help us “understand the evidence or [] determine a fact in issue.” See Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). Often, we are left with conclusory testimony with little or no supporting evidence. This type of testimony, however, is not necessarily deficient or entitled to no weight. As Petitioner notes, it may be the case that the expert’s testimony serves as the basis for language in a petition, and may include non-conclusory opinions. As such, we evaluate the specific testimony of an expert to determine the amount of weight attributable to that testimony, based on the support provided for the testimony. So, some testimony may be entitled to greater weight than other testimony, based on the supporting evidence in the record.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “or a similar technical field, with at least three years of relevant product design experience, including design of remote control or remote monitoring systems, where an increase in experience could compensate for less education. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 44). Patent Owner states that it does not necessarily agree that three years of design experience including remote control or remote monitoring systems is a requirement to be a person of ordinary skill in the art but argues that the distinction is not determinative of the issues raised in the Petition. PO Resp. 6. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition, basing our decision on our review of the ’330 patent, the prior art of record, and Mr. Wilson’s testimony. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 44. We agree with Patent Owner, however, that the level of experience is not determinative of the dispositive issues in this proceeding.” slip op. at 21

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

    “(“[T]he context in which a term is used in the [claim at issue] can be highly instructive.”). Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, the step of “locking out operation of the machine if the processor detects that the access code was disabled upon completion of the authorized operation of the machine.” Ex. 1001, 6:28–30. The words of this step make clear that what is locked out is operation of the machine, rather than access and operation as Petitioner proposes. The words of the claim also make clear that this locking out takes place after completion of the authorized operation and disabling of the access code. Also, this step is distinct from the step of “denying authorized operation of the machine if the entered access code does not match the authorization code” recited earlier in claim 1. See id. at 6:26–27. As such, “locking out” means more than just denying operation of the machine to any one user that has entered an invalid access code. “[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. The Specification discusses locking out in the context of a Lockout Flag, which is part of the logical sequence of steps illustrated in Figure 4. See Ex. 1001, 2:41–44, 5:3–36. Specifically, the Specification describes that the software checks whether a Lockout Flag in frame 67 was set by an administrator at the construction machine 56, or by an administrator at the remote host computer 45. If the Lockout Flag is set, then the algorithm transits to a Lockout Mode in the frame 68, where all users are locked out and are no longer permitted to access and operate construction machine 56 until the Lockout Flag in frame 67 has been cleared by the administrator. Id. at 5:29–36. In this sole example, “locking out” prevents all users from operating the machine.” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “As an initial matter, we agree that neither Shibata nor Kaman discloses locking out all users if the processor detects that the access code was disabled upon completion of the authorized operation of the machine as required by claim 1. As Petitioner recognizes, Shibata simply denies authorization to the user with that access code. See Pet. 25; see also Ex. 1007 ¶ 125 (“[M]ain control unit 11 determines that unmatch between [PINs] in Step S63 is due to the fact that a person not authorized to use the hydraulic excavator has made an attempt to start the engine 14. Then the main control unit 11 inhibits start of the engine 14 (Step S68) . . . .”). Kaman is directed at verifying an indicium of identity to determine if a specific user is an authorized user. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, code 57, 7:7–60 (describing processes for authorizing a user). We recognize that Kaman uses the term “lock-out command.” See Ex. 1008, 7:59. This term is used, however, with respect to a single user, not all users. As Kaman describes, when a magnetic card or access code (exemplary indicia of identity) is identified as lost or stolen, then central computer 38 may either not respond to an access request using the lost or stolen indicium, or respond to the access request with a lock-out command. Id. at 7:52–60. That is, when access is controlled by a remote, central computer, that computer can lock out a specific user who attempts access with lost or stolen indicia of identity. We discern nothing in this disclosure, nor does Petitioner persuasively explain, that Kaman’s use of the term “lockout” would lock out all users, as required by Petitioner’s construction. See PO Resp. 12–13 (“[I]t does not make sense that Kaman would lock out all users following the loss or theft of a single magnetic card or keypad access code; no, at most only that specific card or code would be ‘locked out’ while others remained active.”). Similarly, when access is controlled locally with Kaman’s system, the central computer periodically checks the list of users from vehicle access controller 10. “Where an unauthorized access is determined (i.e., the vehicle was activated outside of normal working hours) or a card was lost, stolen, or expired, the central computer may download a new set of files identifying authorized users (thereby denying access to unauthorized users using indicia of identity of authorized users).” Ex. 1008, 7:45–51. In this case, authorized users may still access the machine. As such, to the extent that Petitioner argues that Kaman teaches locking out all users, we find, on review of the complete record, that Petitioner fails to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that all users are locked out by Kaman’s “lock-out” command. To the extent that Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify the combined teachings of Shibata and Kaman to lock-out all users, we analyze Petitioner’s reasons for modifying Shibata with Kaman. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶ 68 (testifying that a person having ordinary skill in the art could have, “perhaps simply remove[d] all access codes from the machine”). We have weighed the evidence in the complete record, as informed by the parties’ arguments, and find that Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Shibata with Kaman to lock out all users. The primary reason that Petitioner provides for the proposed modification is “when . . . the location or type of machine 10 has a high risk of theft.” Pet. 26. We agree with Patent Owner, however, that Shibata’s system of restricting access to a user with a cell phone containing specialized software to access the machine ameliorates any risk of theft from an unauthorized user. See PO Resp. 14. As Shibata discloses, its security system “prevents possible theft of a construction machine.” Ex. 1007, code 57. Shibata explains that its invention overcomes the deficiencies of security systems that address the problem of “frequent theft of a construction machine.” Id. ¶¶ 2–11. Indeed, as Petitioner recognizes, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Shibata’s teaching that an “unauthorized operator nevertheless had a cell phone compatible with Shibata’s system because it communicated with, and sent its PIN to, the control unit 11.” Pet. 25. As such, “the (unauthorized) operator either was attempting access before their reserved date/time, or was previously authorized to use the vehicle but their reservation period had ended such that the authorized PIN stored in server 41 (if any) identified a different operator.” Id. In other words, Shibata’s unauthorized users were those who were otherwise authorized but attempting to operate the machine outside their authorized time. Even if a skilled artisan were concerned with preventing theft, Petitioner has not shown the claimed approach (locking out all users) was taught by the prior art. And in light of the prior art’s deficiency, Petitioner has not adequately justified modifying the prior art’s approach to include locking out all users.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 9,193,330 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,193,330
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Velos Media, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 12, 2020 · IPR2019-00194 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 13–15, and 17 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds failed to establish the claimed scan passes or scan order.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application resulting in the ’449 patent “would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of video coding.” Pet. 23–24. Patent Owner does not contest that definition of a skilled artisan or offer a different one. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the descriptions in the ’449 patent and the asserted art, and we adopt it.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Although Petitioner proposes a construction for “information indicating levels of significant coefficients” (Pet. 27), we determined in the Institution Decision that there was no need to construe the phrase. Inst. 5. Absent any indication from the parties why such a construction would impact our analysis, we reach that same conclusion here. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 6

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

    “the phrase “in a first scan pass” and shows the proper grammatical relationship. That limitation recites “coding information indicating levels . . . according to the scan order used for coding the information indicating significant coefficients in a second scan pass.” The phrase “in a second scan pass” serves not to frame the scan order—the scan order for coding level information must be the same as the scan order for coding significance information. Rather, “in a second scan pass” relates to the phrase “coding information”—no other understanding of “in a second scan pass” would make sense. For internal consistency, that same understanding must apply to the first limitation such that “in a first scan pass” frames the step of “coding information.” Thus, the claim language requires coding significance information in a first scan pass, and then coding level information in a second scan pass, where each scan pass uses the same scan order.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We find Cheon’s disclosure regarding a purported second scan is insufficient to carry Petitioner’s burden. The primary disclosure Petitioner relies on states only that “[l]evel information of an effective coefficient . . . is encoded after the significance map is encoded.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 175. That does not expressly state that a second scan is performed to encode the level information. Petitioner is left relying on a statement by its declarant that a person of skill would have understood to perform a second scan pass when encoding the level information. Pet. 61. But Petitioner’s declarant provides no explanation and instead simply makes the conclusion. Ex. 1002 ¶ 127. We do not afford significant weight to such a conclusory statement. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). We are left with the possibility that Cheon’s paragraph 175 discloses a second scan, but that does not persuade us that Cheon makes an adequate disclosure to teach a second scan. In this regard, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant that skilled artisans would have understood Cheon’s paragraph 175 to teach a single scan pass. Ex. 2034 ¶¶ 158–159.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 9,338,449 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,338,449
• Apple Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · IPR2018-00812 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 1–3, 16, 21–24, 37, and 38 not shown unpatentable over Reber and Franklin because the combination did not establish the claimed access restrictions and information handling.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “invention for the ’539 patent “would have a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related scientific field, and approximately two years of work experience in the computer science field including, for example, operating systems, database management, encryption, security algorithms, and secure transaction systems, though additional education can substitute for less work experience and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 61–62). Patent Owner submits that the level of skill would involve “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and three years of work or research experience in the fields of secure transactions and encryption, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and two years of work or research experience in related fields.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 16– 20). Patent Owner agrees that its “description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is essentially the same as that of the Petitioner, except that Petitioner’s description requires two years of work or research experience (as compared to three years).” Id. at 17–18. We do not understand any of the parties’ disputes to turn on a precise definition of the level of skill in the art and apply the level of skill as defined by the parties.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “To support our analysis of the disputed issues below, we construe “account identifying information” and “third party.” We conclude that there is no need to construe any other term to resolve the issues in this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree the claim language supports that the separately recited “third party” must be different from the claimed “provider” and “entity.” As to the secure registry itself, we agree further with Patent Owner that the claim language mandates that the “third party” cannot be the secure registry system. The claims recite that the secure-registry processor is configured such that “account identifying information is provided to a third party.” By using “provided,” the claim instructs that the secure registry must send account-identifying information somewhere, not simply perform an additional operation on the information.5 Patent Owner further focuses on the party at issue. According to Patent Owner, the “third party” should be “a party other than one of these other parties already recited in the claims.” PO Resp. 24. Although the claims recite the “secure registry” as a system, as opposed to the “provider” and “entity,” which it recites as “parties,” we agree with Patent Owner that for a third party to be distinct from the secure registry, it should be distinct from whomever operates the secure registry. See id. at 24–25, 47–48 n.8; infra at 21. Accordingly, we construe “third party” as “a party that is not the secure registry, the entity, or the provider.”” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “The Petition states that it would have been obvious to perform merchant validation at the processor and database, but gives no reason for making that change. See Pet. 37. Instead, the Petition states a skilled artisan “would have applied the known techniques of Franklin to improve the security of the Reber system” and that doing so would have reduced fraud by merchants. Id. (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 114). As explained, “the known techniques of Franklin” were to perform merchant validation at the merchant’s bank, not at the secure registry. Ex. 1132, 11:43–46 (“The acquiring bank validates the authorization request by verifying that the merchant is a valid merchant and that the credit card number represents a valid number.”). Thus, a reason to use Franklin’s techniques does not further justify modifying Franklin’s teaching to perform validation at the secure registry as claimed. Petitioner attempts to justify the combination in the Reply, arguing that, in Franklin, “it would have been obvious simply to perform the merchant validation procedure at the issuing bank, depending on the needs of a particular implementation (for example, where the issuing bank and the acquiring bank are the same).” Pet. Reply 12–13. Petitioner reasons that “organizing the system in this way would . . . increase efficiency by reducing the overall number of computations (e.g., conducting only one validation/compliance operation and not two separate operations at two separate places).” Id. at 13. Those statements serve to highlight the deficiency of the Petition. Petitioner’s arguments in the Reply do not respond to Patent Owner, other than attempting to fill in a gap in the we conclude Petitioner’s showing regarding access restrictions at the secure registry is inadequate regardless of the construction of “access restrictions for the provider to secure data for the entity.” Petition. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s Reply arguments go too far beyond those of the Petition. See PO Sur-reply 15–16; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (2017); Trial Practice Guide Update 14–15 (Aug. 2018), https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP (“[A] reply . . . that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. . . . Examples of new issues are new theories or arguments necessary to make out petitioner’s case-in-chief . . . , such as a newly raised rationale to combine . . . that was not expressed in the petition.”); Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the Board did not err in excluding a reply as improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) because Petitioner relied on a new rationale to combine). Petitioner failed to make an adequate showing in the Petition regarding a plain requirement of the claims. The Petition identifies no prior-art disclosure that taught or suggested to skilled artisans to implement access restrictions at the secure registry, and provides insufficient reasons why a skilled artisan would have had reason to do so. Thus, Petitioner fails to show that challenged claims 1, 22, or 37” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 8,856,539 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,856,539
• Apple Inc. / Visa Inc. et al. v. Universal Secure Registry, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 7, 2019 · IPR2018-00810 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, and 34 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Maritzen, Jakobsson, and Niwa.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factual indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “the various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively working in the field.” Jacobson Bros., Inc. v. United States, 512 F.2d 1065, 1071 (Ct. Cl. 1975); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting with approval Jacobson Bros.). The parties’ respective proposals are substantially similar such that there is no apparent dispute between the parties. Also, based on our review of the record before us, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Thus, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We note, however, that our findings in this proceeding would not differ under Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the Specification identifies fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or facial scan, DNA analysis, and possibly a picture of a person as examples of biometric information. Furthermore, we credit Dr. Shoup’s testimony that biometric information falls into the category of “things a person is.” See Ex. 1002 ¶ 33. Therefore, in the context of the claims and the Specification of the ’826 patent, we construe the term “biometric information” to mean “information about a user’s physical characteristics, such as fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or facial scan, DNA analysis, or personal photograph.”” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree Maritzen does not disclose expressly that PTD 100 is a handheld device. The only disclosure from Maritzen cited in the Petition, ¶ 63, describes the architecture for PTD 100 but makes no mention that PTD 100 is a handheld device. Ex. 1004 ¶ 63. The Petition does not direct us to any other disclosure in Maritzen that explicitly describes any of the disclosed PTD embodiments as being handheld, and we are not aware of any such disclosure. Furthermore, the testimony of Dr. Shoup cited by Petitioner merely repeats the same assertion that Maritzen’s PTD 100 is the first handheld device without providing any support or explanation for this assertion, other than citing the same ¶ 63 of Maritzen. Ex. 1002 ¶ 49.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Maritzen discloses that clearing house 130 verifies that the biometric key (transmitted by PTD 100) is valid by comparing the biometric key to a known biometric key maintained within the clearing house. Ex. 1004 ¶ 48; see also id. at 81 (“Clearing house 130 also validates biometric key 350 against pre-established biometric key 950.”). Maritzen also discloses that “[p]rivacy card 110 only transmits the biometric key. The biometric information identifying the user is not transmitted at any time.” Id. ¶ 44. This disclosure indicates that the biometric key does not contain biometric information. In other words, the biometric key is something different than biometric information, which we have construed to mean “information about a user’s physical characteristics, such as fingerprint, voice print, signature, iris or facial scan, DNA analysis, or personal photograph.” See supra § III.C. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider replacing the known biometric key in clearing house 103 with second biometric information as taught by Jakobsson because comparing the biometric key to biometric information, rather than the known biometric key, would not be effective to verify the biometric key. In other words, because the biometric key does not contain biometric information, it could not be compared meaningfully to the second biometric information.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 9,100,826 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,100,826

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.