• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01169 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–20 are unpatentable over Thomas; claim 3 is not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 22–36 are unpatentable, and substitute claim 21 is not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “g) Conclusion—Claim 1 Based on the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that” slip op. at 28

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “g) Conclusion—Claim 1 Based on the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that” slip op. at 28

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

    “with the computer program 110.” Ex. 1005, 3:54–55. Thomas describes that (1) the “collected data is then stored in the database 130,” (2) the collected “data is stored in a data structure, generally referred to as a user’s profile,” and (3) the collected “data is logically linked to an event, or situation, that initiated the user’s input.” Id. at 3:56–61. Thomas describes creating or establishing a user profile by simulator 120 recording “the user’s decision/input” and storing “the user’s input in the field or sub-profile associated with the particular situation and/or event.” Id. at 4:67–5:5, Fig. 6. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing for element [1.3]. Also, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, we must consider what Thomas discloses rather than whether Thomas uses the exact claim term “instruction sets.” Cf. Gleave, 560 F.3d at 1334 (a reference does not have to satisfy an ipsis verbis test to disclose a claimed element). For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Thomas does not “mention instruction sets” or “anything related to an instruction set.” PO Resp. 36–37; PO Sur-reply 17.” slip op. at 42

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “C. Indefiniteness Petitioner argues that proposed substitute claims 22–36 are indefinite.” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 10,607,134 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,607,134
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 3, 2025 · IPR2023-01172 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 11–14, 16–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grotmol; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable because Grotmol does not disclose its required sequence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jason Janet. Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner “adopts” Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We also adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5

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

    “The parties appear to agree that the term “connection” refers to a relationship, but dispute whether it includes a link. PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 23. We need not resolve this claim construction issue in order to resolve the parties’ disputes about the asserted ground of unpatentability. Specifically, as discussed below, even if we assume for the purposes of this Decision that the term “connection” means a “relationship that includes a link,” the asserted prior art still discloses the disputed claim limitation. See Section II.D.23.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that claim 15 requires modifying the first instruction set before determining the modified first instruction set based on an at least partial match between the new digital picture and the first digital picture. Claim 15 recites “modifying: the first one or more instruction sets” and “determining the modified the first one or more instruction sets . . . based on the at least partial match between the new one or more digital pictures and the first one or more digital pictures.” Ex. 1001, 162:65–163:15 (emphasis added). The phrase “the modified . . . instruction sets” in the determining limitation indicates an order because it refers back to the instruction sets modified in the modifying limitation. Id. Further, the phrase “based on the at least partial match” indicates that a partial match between the new picture and the first picture returns the modified first instruction set. Id. In order for a partial match to return the modified first instruction set, it is logical that the first instruction set previously was modified and correlated to the first picture. Id. Thus, claim 15 indicates that the modifying limitation is performed before the determining limitation. See Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“First, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, [the recited steps] must be performed in the order written.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “3. Means-plus-function limitations Petitioner contends that the corresponding structure for the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more digital pictures,” the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device,” and the “means for learning the first one or more digital pictures correlated with the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device” in claim 34 is “one or more processor circuits.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:8–60). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 11. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for purposes of this Decision. D. Anticipation of Claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 by Grotmol Petitioner argues that claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 11,055,583 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 11,055,583
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01054 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4 and 11 are unpatentable over Grotmol and Hickman; claims 5 and 7 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 21 and 24–26 are unpatentable; claims 22 and 23 are not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art, 3 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness in this proceeding. would have [had] at least: (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–42). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. Considering the subject matter of the ’974 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for the person of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least,” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification of the ’974 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, except as noted above, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment” slip op. at 11

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

    “1. “connection” Claim 7 recites, in pertinent part, that “a first connection is generated” slip op. at 14

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

    “c) Conclusion—Claim 7 After consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record, we” slip op. at 52

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “7 We recognize that our conclusion here differs from the preliminary determination made in our Preliminary Guidance. After considering the full trial record, including Patent Owner’s MTA Reply, Petitioner’s MTA Sur-reply, Patent Owner’s Sur-sur-reply, and the arguments made at the oral hearing, we find that Petitioner has satisfied its burden of showing that this claim limitation would have been obvious over the Grotmol-Hickman combination. When issuing our Preliminary Guidance, we emphasized that the views expressed therein were “preliminary,” “subject to change upon consideration of the complete record,” and “not binding on the Board when reaching a final written decision.” See Prelim. Guid. 3.” slip op. at 99

  Patent outcomesUS 10,452,974 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,452,974
• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Fedex Corporate Services, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00586 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 and 26–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Lau and Benson; claim 28 also relies on Harring. Qualcomm did not show claims 16–25 unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Exclude

    “We do not rely on Exhibits 1010, 1014, 1026, or 1027 for any determinations or findings in this decision. See infra note 10 (noting the context in which Ex. 1014 has been cited). When we use the phrase “evidence of record” or other similar terms or phrases, we are referring to the evidence of record except that evidence that is the subject of FedEx’s Motion to Exclude, that is, Exhibits 1010, 1014, 1026, 1027, and 2049. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to Exhibits 1010, 1014, 1026, and 1027 is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Almeroth essentially agrees with Qualcomm’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill as expressed above. See Ex. 2200 ¶¶ 45–46. Because Qualcomm’s uncontroverted articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by testimonial evidence by both parties and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’231 patent, we adopt it for this decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:16–2:37 (“Field of the Disclosure” and “Background” sections of the ’231 patent, describing background knowledge about methods for tracking packages using wireless sensor devices). Qualcomm also contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been familiar with the field of technology described [on pages 7–13 of 6 Qualcomm argues that this is “at least” the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 7. As we did in our instituting decision, we disregard this qualification to avoid vagueness. Dec. 19 n.6; Dr. Almeroth agrees. Ex. 2200 ¶ 46. the Petition].” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 41). The “Field of Technology” section of the Petition refers to background knowledge of RFID technology and hierarchical sensor networks. See Pet. 7–13. Because whether this subject matter is part of the background knowledge in the art is not determinative of our decision, we need not adopt this part of Qualcomm’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Although the ’231 patent does appear to describe these as two separate embodiments, the embodiments both include smartphone 200. See Ex. 1001, 110:13–14, 19–20, 23–26. We find persuasive Qualcomm’s argument that the only apparent difference between the two embodiments is that in the second one, smartphone 200 has an app that allows it to use hardware capable of directly communicating with the server. In other words, the distinction is a matter of programming: the smartphone 200 is both “unable” and “not operable to” communicate with a server when it is not presently configured that way through software. This is inconsistent with Dr. Almeroth’s opinion that a device would not be “unable to directly communicate with the server” if it “ha[s] the circuitry components necessary to communicate with a server but simply lack the programming to do so presently.” Ex. 2200 ¶ 54. Thus, we do not find his testimony credible on this point.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction needed

    “Although the ’231 patent does appear to describe these as two separate embodiments, the embodiments both include smartphone 200. See Ex. 1001, 110:13–14, 19–20, 23–26. We find persuasive Qualcomm’s argument that the only apparent difference between the two embodiments is that in the second one, smartphone 200 has an app that allows it to use hardware capable of directly communicating with the server. In other words, the distinction is a matter of programming: the smartphone 200 is both “unable” and “not operable to” communicate with a server when it is not presently configured that way through software. This is inconsistent with Dr. Almeroth’s opinion that a device would not be “unable to directly communicate with the server” if it “ha[s] the circuitry components necessary to communicate with a server but simply lack the programming to do so presently.” Ex. 2200 ¶ 54. Thus, we do not find his testimony credible on this point. Regarding FedEx’s term-differentiation argument, we agree with Qualcomm that, based on the above evidence in the ’231 patent disclosure, there does not appear to be any meaningful difference between “unable to” and “not operative to” as those terms appear in the claims. Thus, we disagree with FedEx’s proposed construction of “unable to directly communicate with the server.” Our prior-art analysis below will be informed by the discussion above, but we need not explicitly construe this term to resolve the issues raised in the Petition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 9,182,231 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,182,231
• Apple Inc. v. Mullen Industries LLCInstituted
  PTAB · May 9, 2023 · IPR2023-00091 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the §103 challenge based on Sheha, Smith, and Carey.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence of record, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On the current record, we find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’283 patent Specification and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt Petitioner’s proposal for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner asserts that “[n]one of the claim terms of the ’283 Patent need be construed by the Board.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not address claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. Based on the record before us, we do not need to construe explicitly any claim term to resolve the parties’ disputes at this stage of the proceeding. 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)). To the extent that the scope of any particular claim term requires discussion, however, we provide the discussion in our assessment of the challenges.” slip op. at 14

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

    “have had reason to combine the teachings of Sheha with Smith and Carey to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1. As for Smith, Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the mobile devices in Sheha include wireless telephones that would have included conventional functionality such as contact lists and manual input devices such as buttons to interact with a contact list, such as those discussed in Smith.” Pet. 17 (referencing Ex. 1021 ¶ 202); see also id. at 26 (“It would have been obvious to include the standard feature of a contact list [from Smith] into the Sheha wireless devices to enable a user to easily retrieve and select a contact of interest from among multiple saved contacts.”). Petitioner adds that because these functions “were routine and conventional,” an artisan of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the functionality into Sheha’s wireless device. Id. (referencing Ex. 1021 ¶ 202). With respect to Carey, Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the mobile devices in Sheha include wireless telephones that could provide users with added functionality, such as location services, that might require a user to enter authorization information to use such added functionality, as described in Sheha.” Pet. 18 (referencing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 165–166); see also id. at 28 (“A [person having ordinary skill in the art] would have included [Carey’s] functionality to enable a user of Sheha’s system to input their username and password.”). Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success incorporating Carey’s functionality, as Sheha describes an authentication process similar to Carey’s process. Id. Upon review of the information in the Petition and corresponding evidence with respect to motivation to combine, we determine Petitioner has made a sufficient showing, at this stage of the proceeding, that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine Smith’s and Carey’s teachings with Sheha as proposed by Petitioner. On the current record, we determine that Petitioner provides rational factual underpinnings to support its reasoning. Cf. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (stating that, to facilitate the analysis of an obviousness position, the proponent should” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,204,283
• Qualcomm Incorporated / Zyxel Communications Corporation v. Unm Rainforest InnovationsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2022 · IPR2021-00377 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 11–13 are unpatentable over Hui; the contingent motion to amend is denied because substitute claims 29, 30, and 39–41 are unpatentable over Hui.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMotion to exclude, grantedMixed

    “A motion to exclude evidence must be filed to preserve a prior objection to evidence and must identify the objections in the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). An objection to evidence submitted prior to the institution of the trial, including evidence submitted with a petition to institute inter partes review, must be filed within ten business days of the institution of the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). Once a trial is instituted, any objection must be filed within five business days of the service of evidence to which the objection is directed. Id. The objection must identify 9 Patent Owner quotes Paper 26 which was expunged and replaced with Paper 36. See Ex. 3001. 10 Paper 30 was expunged and replaced with Paper 37. the grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow for correction in the form of supplemental evidence. Id. An objection to deposition evidence “must be made during the deposition.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Petitioner’s arguments. Petitioner is correct that the ’204 Patent does not redefine compression to exclude quantization, or otherwise disavow the scope of “compression.” We also agree that compression is a broad and basic term that encompasses any form of compression. We agree, however, with Patent Owner that compression and quantization should not be interpreted as having the exact same meaning. Patent Owner’s arguments, however, focusing on the purposes of quantization and compression are misplaced. In cases where quantization results in a reduced data size, quantization can be encompassed by the term compression. We find that, consistent with the ’204 Patent Specification, the scope of the term “compress[ing]” may include quantization, so long as the quantization results in using fewer bits than the original digital representation, i.e., a reduction in data size. For the foregoing reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal that “‘compress[ing] the estimated CSI,’ should be construed as plain and ordinary meaning, which excludes ‘quantizing the estimated CSI’ without further separately applied compression.” See PO Resp. 20; PO Sur-reply 9. As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not provide an explicit claim construction for “compress[ing] the estimated CSI.” The ordinary and customary meaning applies to “compress[ing] the estimated CSI.”” slip op. at 30

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts: As of 2008, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the field of the ’204 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and around two years of experience in the design or development of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent plus knowledge of [multiple-input, multiple-output (“MIMO”)] and [orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (“OFDM”)]. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 19). Patent Owner offers a slightly different description as follows: At the relevant time, a person of ordinary skill in the art in the technical field of the ’204 patent would have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and approximately one year of experience in the design or development of wireless communications systems or the equivalent, including knowledge of MIMO and OFDM. Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 31). We adopt Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’204 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art, but our conclusions would be the same under Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 32

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703. Rule “702 imposes a special obligation upon a trial judge to ‘ensure that any and all scientific testimony . . . is not only relevant, but reliable,’” which is a “basic gatekeeping obligation.” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)). The policy considerations for excluding expert testimony, such as those implemented by Daubert’s gatekeeping framework, are less compelling in bench proceedings such as inter partes reviews than in jury trials because, unlike a lay jury, the Board has significant experience in evaluating expert testimony. Accordingly, the danger of prejudice in this proceeding would be considerably lower than in a lay jury trial and the wholesale exclusion of a witness’s declaration is rarely called for in a proceeding before the Board. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s arguments challenging the credibility of Dr. Roy go to the weight that should be given to Dr. Roy’s Declaration testimony, not the admissibility of the Declaration. In our patentability analysis that follows, we account for the evidence that Dr. Roy’s Declaration is substantially the same as Dr. Akl’s Declaration, the supporting evidence cited therein, as well as Dr. Roy’s deposition testimony in determining the appropriate weight to give Dr. Roy’s testimony when weighing the record evidence.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,249,204 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,249,204
• Polygroup Limited Mco v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2020 · IPR2016-01610 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the ’186 patent were held unpatentable; other remanded challenged claims were not shown unpatentable, and substitute claims 29 and 30 were allowed.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandMixed

    “On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated our Original Decision in part and remanded the cases for further proceedings. Polygroup Ltd. MCO v. Willis Elec. Co., Ltd, 759 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2019). After conferring with the parties, we permitted additional briefing to address the issues on remand from the Federal Circuit. Paper 196.” slip op. at 2

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

    “and the second wire are detachably connected to the first trunk electrical connector of the first trunk portion.” Petitioner acknowledges that “Miller does not expressly teach that the wiring assembly is ‘modular’ or ‘separably connected.’” Pet. II 65. Petitioner contends that “assemblies for providing a detachable connection between electrical contact sets and wiring harnesses were well-known in the art.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner contends that “Lessner teaches a ‘quick-disconnect electrical connector for receiving and releasably retaining a male tab connector’ and a [person of skill in the art (POSA)] would recognize that it may be used to create detachable connections between the electrical contacts of a connector or plug, and the wires of a wiring assembly.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 1:10–11; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner contends that one skilled in the art would have modified Miller’s teachings based on those from Lessner. Pet. II 65–70. Petitioner reasons, for example, that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to enhance the mechanical and electrical connections between the electrical contacts sets and wiring assemblies of Miller[] with the detachable electrical connectors of Lessner” for “ease and speed of assembly and disassembly.” Id. at 65–66 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 261–67). Petitioner further reasons that “the detachable connectors of Lessner provide a quick-connect engagement allowing the builder to easily and quickly attach the wires to the terminals on the trunk connector during assembly,” which “also allows for easy separation of the wires from the trunk connectors, as needed for repair or replacement of parts.” Id. at 66. Petitioner’s contentions as to why one skilled in the art would have modified Miller’s teachings are unpersuasive. As discussed above, Petitioner cited Miller’s plug and socket connectors as corresponding to the recited trunk connectors. Petitioner’s proposed modification in the Miller alone challenge adds an additional connection point in Miller’s plug and socket connectors, further complicating assembly, rather than providing greater “ease and speed of assembly and disassembly” as alleged. Petitioner’s additional reasoning that the proposed modification “also allows for easy separation of the wires from the trunk connectors, as needed for repair or replacement of parts” is equally unpersuasive. The only difference resulting from the modification is that the plug and socket connectors could be removed from their respective wiring assemblies. That is, it provides for removal of one connector by providing yet another connector, which fails to provide a benefit because Miller’s plug and socket connectors are loose, rather than fixed within the trunk portions like Patent Owner’s connectors. For at least these reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish unpatentability of claim 7 of the ’186 patent by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedUnpatentable

    “D. Secondary Considerations As explained in the Original Decision, Patent Owner provides evidence related to non-obviousness of the claims. Original Decision 43–60. Considering that evidence, as explained in the Original Decision, relative to the fact that Miller alone teaches each element of these claims in a single embodiment16, we determine that Patent Owner’s evidence does not outweigh Petitioner’s case of obviousness for claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has established by the preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are unpatentable. Petitioner has failed to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that claim 7 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 21

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “The figure reproduced above is a portion of Miller’s Figure 2, which is a front, partial section view of its artificial tree, along with Petitioner’s annotations noting Miller’s electrical connections (circled in red). Pet. I 29. As seen above, Petitioner cites Miller’s plug and socket connection as the electrical connection recited in the claims. See Pet. I 33 (“Miller also teaches that wires 22 of trunks 3, 5 are electrically connectable via plug and socket connectors of Fig. 2.”), 42, 57–58 (presenting similar contentions for claims 20 and 28). The problem with Petitioner’s contentions that rely on Miller alone is that the electrical connection in Miller is independent of the mechanical connection of tree portions (i.e., the mechanical connection does not result in the electrical connection in the manner claimed). For at least this reason, Petitioner’s challenges to claims 10, 20, and 28 based on Miller alone fail.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,454,186 mixed
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,454,186
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Digital Services, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2018 · IPR2017-00948 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 18–22, and 25 are unpatentable; claims 9–17, 23, and 24 are not unpatentable; substitute claims 26–28 are denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The “verify” limitation of claim 1 expressly recites a check based “at least in part on a device identity.” The specification describes such a check as occurring at steps 15 and 16, not step 13. Steps 15 and 16 check whether the device identity is on record and, in response to that check, allow a digital product to be used on a device (steps 17, 18) or start a process to authorize the device. Id. at 5:1–9, 5:13–18. Although steps 15 and 16 are not expressly described as a verification of validity, steps 15 and 16, not step 13, logically track and most closely align with the language of claim 1’s “verify” and “in response to” limitations. Thus, the specification supports Petitioner’s view that the “verify” limitation can encompass checking whether unique device information is reflected in a database as authorized for a license.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “claim 1 is limiting, with Patent Owner arguing that it is and Petitioner arguing that it is not. Id. at 12–13. Patent Owner now argues that “[t]he preambles [of claims 1 and 22] expressly state that the claimed system and method are both directed to ‘adjusting’ the license in terms of its allowed copy count, which the preambles expressly define.” PO Resp. 9. We explained in the Institution Decision, however, that even if the preamble is limiting (e.g., by virtue of it providing antecedent basis (“at least one allowed copy count”) for “set the allowed copy count”), the language “[a] system for adjusting a license for a digital product over time” constitutes a 2 The preamble of claim 25 is not similar to that of claims 1 and 22, and Patent Owner does not propose an “adjusting” limitation for the language “in response to the device identity not being on the record, set the allowed copy count to a first upper limit for a first time period after an initial authorization of the digital product,” as recited in claim 25. statement of intended purpose and does not purport to modify any particular claim language, such as “set the allowed copy count.” Dec. 13–14. Patent Owner argues that our preliminary construction would vitiate the purpose of the preamble language and that, instead, “the claim limitations must be understood in light of the ‘adjusting’ context introduced in the preamble.” PO Resp. 9. However, “the mere fact that a structural term in the preamble is part of the claim does not mean that the preamble’s statement of purpose or other description is also part of the claim.” Marrin v. Griffin, 599 F.3d 1290, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Rather, the Federal Circuit has held that “a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Thus, an intended purpose set forth in a claim preamble and the context that purpose might provide, without more, are not limiting. Moreover, as Petitioner points out, “the claimed invention could be used to adjust an allowed device limit, at least to a higher limit, thereby satisfying the intended purpose of the invention.” Reply 4.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “On the complete record, we find that DeMello’s authentication, which checks a Passport ID and machine ID against stored records to authenticate a device, discloses executable code for the processor to “verify that a license data associated with the digital product is valid based at least in part on a device identity generated by sampling physical parameters of the given device,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 22.” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “The Federal Circuit has cautioned that “references to ‘common sense’—whether to supply a motivation to combine or a missing limitation—cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially when dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art references specified.” Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That is not the case here. As explained above, both the ’960 patent and DeMello describe precise numbers of days as arbitrary and that their respective inventions contemplate other numbers. We find that it would have been reasonable for the skilled artisan to have selected six days, as recited in claim 6, in light of DeMello’s disclosure.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 8,566,960 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Bilski · Berkheimer · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,566,960
• Fedex Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 20, 2018 · IPR2017-00729 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Rappaport, Rappaport and DeLorme, or Rappaport and Wright; claims 18–24 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have held at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent, and two or more years of industry experience in the field of mobile communications, or the academic equivalent thereof.” Pet. 8. Petitioner bases its argument on the testimony and experience of Dr. Lavian. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 44–49). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s statement. See generally PO Resp. For the 3 The complete record does not include evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness or secondary considerations. reasons given by Petitioner (Pet. 8; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 44–49), we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Although Petitioner directs us to a portion of the ’581 Patent that Petitioner contends corresponds to the field management program, i.e., “Ex. 1001, 7:50–8:12” (Pet. 10), Petitioner does not identify teachings in Rappaport corresponding to the algorithm in the ’581 Patent, which includes “[t]he program would prompt the user for input of data related to the problem.” Ex. 1001, 7:54–55. Petitioner’s assertion that no substantial differences exist between “Rappaport’s memory, processor, and SitePlanner® program and the memory, processor, and field data management program” of the ’581 Patent is conclusory. Pet. 51. Although Petitioner includes references back to its contentions for other independent claims that do not require a prompt, Petitioner does not provide any explanation regarding these other teachings and the prompt requirement of claim 18. Id. As discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 7, Rappaport teaches repeating the cycle of making measurements, receiving optimized predictions, and reconfiguring the network. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 19:1–8. However, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that this teaching, or any other teaching in Rappaport, is the same or equivalent to a program that prompts the user to input data. Dr. Lavian’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶ 205) is conclusory and substantially the same as Petitioner’s contentions. Dr. Lavian testifies that the program in Rappaport when executed “is substantially equivalent” to that of the ’581 Patent. Id. Because Dr. Lavian does not disclose sufficiently the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based, including what portions of Rappaport are substantially equivalent to the prompt in the ’581 Patent, we give his testimony (Ex. 1006 ¶ 205) little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 45

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

    “Although Petitioner directs us to a portion of the ’581 Patent that Petitioner contends corresponds to the field management program, i.e., “Ex. 1001, 7:50–8:12” (Pet. 10), Petitioner does not identify teachings in Rappaport corresponding to the algorithm in the ’581 Patent, which includes “[t]he program would prompt the user for input of data related to the problem.” Ex. 1001, 7:54–55. Petitioner’s assertion that no substantial differences exist between “Rappaport’s memory, processor, and SitePlanner® program and the memory, processor, and field data management program” of the ’581 Patent is conclusory. Pet. 51. Although Petitioner includes references back to its contentions for other independent claims that do not require a prompt, Petitioner does not provide any explanation regarding these other teachings and the prompt requirement of claim 18. Id. As discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 7, Rappaport teaches repeating the cycle of making measurements, receiving optimized predictions, and reconfiguring the network. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 19:1–8. However, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that this teaching, or any other teaching in Rappaport, is the same or equivalent to a program that prompts the user to input data. Dr. Lavian’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶ 205) is conclusory and substantially the same as Petitioner’s contentions. Dr. Lavian testifies that the program in Rappaport when executed “is substantially equivalent” to that of the ’581 Patent. Id. Because Dr. Lavian does not disclose sufficiently the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based, including what portions of Rappaport are substantially equivalent to the prompt in the ’581 Patent, we give his testimony (Ex. 1006 ¶ 205) little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). In summary, Petitioner has not provided persuasive contentions identifying in Rappaport teachings for the “means for managing data collected at the field using the at least one handheld device responsive to program,” recited in claim 18. On this record, we are not persuaded Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 18 is unpatentable over Rappaport.” slip op. at 45

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

    “Petitioner has shown that all the limitations of claim 1 are taught in Rappaport’s description with respect to two consecutive figures, i.e., Figures 9 and 10. Rappaport’s Figures 9 and 10 both pertain to a system with a handheld device that transmits field data to a remote server, consistent with Dr. Lavian’s testimony. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 77, 80 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002, (57), 1:12–18, 4:41–5:31, 18:7–18, 18:64–19:8, Figs. 1, 3, 9, 10). Even to the extent that these disclosures are of two separate embodiments, “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Consistent with Dr. Lavian’s testimony (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 80–85), we find that it at least would have been obvious and predictable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the functionality disclosed with respect to Figures 9 and 10 into a single handheld device that transmits measured field data to a remote server so that the technician could optimize on-site and on the fly. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 18:7–18, 18:33–48, 18:64–19:8. Rappaport depicts handheld devices in Figures 1, 3, 9, and 10 and refers to each device as a “handheld computer.” See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 6:27–58, 9:26–36, 14:54–15:3, 16:56–65, 18:7–18, 18:64–19:8, Figs. 1, 3, 9, 10. Dr. Sharony’s testimony that the proposed combination is impractical because “the exemplary Palm IIIc handheld of Rappaport . . . only had one serial port” (Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 53–59) does not take into account the full disclosure of Rappaport including “many other portable handheld computers” that “could be used while staying within the spirit of the present invention” such as cellular phones, other PDAs running PalmOS and pocket or tablet personal computers (PCs) running the Windows OS or “another powerful OS.” See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 6:27–58; see also id. at 19:9–12 (“[T]hose skilled in the art will recognize that the invention can be practiced with considerable variation”).6 Additionally, Dr. Sharony’s testimony that the measurement device and the interface box must be connected “at the same time” (Ex. 2008 ¶ 53) is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not require simultaneous collection and transmission of field data.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,494,581 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,494,581
• Apple Inc. v. THX Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00235 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over Tomonori and Sadaie; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable over Tomonori, Virva, and Sadaie.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In sum, the ’483 patent describes and claims a sound reflecting surface that redirects sound waves output from the speaker towards the elongate output slot, whereas sound damping material absorbs standing waves inside the sound duct. The ’483 patent goes to great lengths to distinguish a sound reflecting surface from a sound damping surface. Furthermore, given that “sound damping material” is different from a “sound reflecting surface” and both are recited as separate claim limitations, it follows that a sound reflecting surface is not made of sound damping material. For the reasons given above, we construe “sound reflecting surface,” in the context of claim 1 and in light of the ’483 patent specification, as “a surface that redirects sound waves output from a speaker, not made of sound damping material.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “2. Other Terms Petitioner proposes to construe additional claim terms. Pet. 11–14. We determine that no express construction of these additional terms is necessary for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “suppress standing waves inside a duct. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112). Dr. Vipperman identifies the reason for Sadaie’s use of side wall sound damping as enabling “the sharpness of a fundamental wave resonance of a standing wave determined by the length of the sound path . . . to be suppressed because a substantial length of the sound path cannot be primarily determined.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 112 (citing Ex. 1003, 14). We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning, therefore, that “[e]xtending the damping material of Tomonori along the sidewalls of the duct,” as taught by Sadaie, would have been one of a limited number of known solutions further minimizing the presence of spurious resonances and standing waves inside the duct. Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 113). The quoted statements of Petitioner and Dr. Vipperman with respect to Tomonori and Sadaie are consistent with the principles set forth in KSR.10 Petitioner and Dr. Vipperman provide an analysis of why one of ordinary skill in the art of speaker design would have been motivated by Sadaie’s disclosure of side wall sound damping to modify Tomonori’s narrow sound duct, such that sound damping material forms the sides of the sound duct but not the bottom (sound reflecting) surface. In particular, Dr. Vipperman’s Declaration provides a sufficient analysis to support the obvious modification of Tomonori’s narrow profile speaker, by a speaker designer of ordinary skill, such that “sound damping material form[s] sides of the sound duct” to help suppress the presence of spurious resonances and standing waves inside the duct. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112, 113.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,433,483 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,433,483

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.