• Zoho Corporation / Zoho Corporation PVT., Ltd. v. Meetrix IP, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00379 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Drell, Knappe, and Elliott; claims 17–20 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish the separately recited mixers in claims 17 and 18.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. Although Patent Owner proposes an alternative level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain how it impacts Petitioner’s contentions or Patent Owner’s arguments in opposition. Indeed, at the hearing, Patent Owner’s counsel stated “I can’t point to a material difference that would change the outcome of this.” Tr. 49:10–15. Therefore, it appears that neither party contends that the differences in their proposals affects the outcome of this proceeding. Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision, adopting Petitioner’s proposal, was incorrect. See Paper 6, 9. Therefore, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as consistent with the ’525 patent’s specification and the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, our findings would not change even under Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that no claim construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision. That is, Patent Owner does not argue, and we do 5 Petitioner was not a party to this district court litigation. See Tr. 8:21–23 (Petitioner’s counsel stating “[w]e were not involved, Zoho was not involved in that claim construction process that resulted in the construction from the Western District of Texas.”). not discern, that any claim terms are in controversy on the current record.6 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 10

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

    “We are persuaded that the combination of Drell and Knappe teaches limitation [9.6]. Patent Owner’s arguments improperly address Drell and Knappe individually, rather than the combination of Drell and Knappe on which Petitioner relies. See Soft Gel Techs., Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., 864 F.3d 1334, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (attacking a reference individually does not show non-obviousness where petitioner’s ground is premised on the combination of references); Reply 7. As described above, Petitioner provides extensive reasoning, supported by testimony from Dr. Houh, explaining how the combination of Drell and Knappe teaches limitation [9.6], and provides reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the references. Patent Owner’s arguments largely do not address Petitioner’s contentions and fail to address Petitioner’s arguments in support of the combination. In addition, Petitioner supports its arguments with citations to the references and credible declarant testimony from the vantage of a person of ordinary skill in the art, while Patent Owner’s arguments as to the interpretation of the references and motivations (or lack thereof) of a person of ordinary skill in the art are insufficiently supported by testimony from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art or citation to the references.9 See PO Resp. 18–19. We find Petitioner’s interpretation of the references and motivation to combine more persuasive than Patent Owner’s insufficiently supported attorney argument on these issues.” slip op. at 31

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “combination of references); Reply 7. As described above, Petitioner provides extensive reasoning, supported by testimony from Dr. Houh, explaining how the combination of Drell and Knappe teaches limitation [9.6], and provides reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the references. Patent Owner’s arguments largely do not address Petitioner’s contentions and fail to address Petitioner’s arguments in support of the combination. In addition, Petitioner supports its arguments with citations to the references and credible declarant testimony from the vantage of a person of ordinary skill in the art, while Patent Owner’s arguments as to the interpretation of the references and motivations (or lack thereof) of a person of ordinary skill in the art are insufficiently supported by testimony from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art or citation to the references.9 See PO Resp. 18–19. We find Petitioner’s interpretation of the references and motivation to combine more persuasive than Patent Owner’s insufficiently supported attorney argument on these issues.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 9,094,525 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,094,525
• Apple Inc. v. Aire Technology LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2023 · IPR2022-01136 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 15 is unpatentable as obvious over Tobergte and Cole; claims 1–3 and 8–11 were not shown unpatentable because the references did not disclose claim 1’s search-signal limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Even a small amount of power that may be consumed by incorporating Cole into Tobergte likely exceeds the power consumed by Tobergte’s configuration in which the computer and oscillator are disconnected from power. Nevertheless, neither party provides a specific power consumption analysis. On this issue, we weigh Dr. Phinney’s testimony over Patent Owner’s attorney arguments and determine that Patent Owner has not sufficiently supported its contention that Cole teaches away from Tobergte on this basis. We determine that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Tobergte with those of Cole to provide a system that detects the presence of data carriers automatically without the need for the user to activate the data carrier with a switch.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Tobergte’s computer 38 and oscillator 34 are disconnected from energy source 40. Pet. Reply 14–15. Petitioner acknowledges that Tobergte improves upon prior art systems, in which the fixed station emits the high frequency magnetic field continuously, by emitting the high frequency magnetic field “only upon awakening from a low power rest state.” Petitioner points to the testimony of Dr. Phinney concluding that Cole’s presence detector is at a power level too low to fully power the data carrier, but sufficient to allow the data carrier to change the impedance of the field. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1003, Phinney Decl. ¶ 53, commenting on Ex. 1006, 6:1–8 cited by Patent Owner); id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:21–35). Even a small amount of power that may be consumed by incorporating Cole into Tobergte likely exceeds the power consumed by Tobergte’s configuration in which the computer and oscillator are disconnected from power. Nevertheless, neither party provides a specific power consumption analysis. On this issue, we weigh Dr. Phinney’s testimony over Patent Owner’s attorney arguments and determine that Patent Owner has not sufficiently supported its contention that Cole teaches away from Tobergte on this basis. We determine that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Tobergte with those of Cole to provide a system that detects the presence of data carriers automatically without the need for the user to activate the data carrier with a switch.” slip op. at 16

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

    “sufficient for the data carrier to switch to passive mode. Id. at 6:1−5. When the data carrier is switched into passive mode, the data carrier’s supply device generates the operating voltage for the electric circuit from the received high frequency energy. Id. at 6:5–9. Claim 1 of Tobergte does not suggest that the fixed station performs any search function. Instead, Tobergte’s fixed station receives both energy and data from the data carrier for the brief period that the data carrier is in the active mode. There is no indication that Tobergte’s fixed station is emitting signals to search for the data carrier. Instead, Tobergte claims a system in which the data carrier that “wakes up” the fixed station is then powered by the energy of the high frequency field transmitted by the fixed station. None of Tobergte’s other claims explicitly recites a search limitation. In other words, Tobergte describes and claims changing a conventional data carrier that transmits data only when interrogated (id. at 3:48−52) into a data carrier that begins transmitting energy and data first, when activated by a user (id. at 3:55−58, 3:65−67).” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Even a small amount of power that may be consumed by incorporating Cole into Tobergte likely exceeds the power consumed by Tobergte’s configuration in which the computer and oscillator are disconnected from power. Nevertheless, neither party provides a specific power consumption analysis. On this issue, we weigh Dr. Phinney’s testimony over Patent Owner’s attorney arguments and determine that Patent Owner has not sufficiently supported its contention that Cole teaches away from Tobergte on this basis. We determine that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Tobergte with those of Cole to provide a system that detects the presence of data carriers automatically without the need for the user to activate the data carrier with a switch.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,174,360 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,174,360
• Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2023 · IPR2022-01097 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4 and 14 were not shown unpatentable because Sourcefire did not disclose the claimed responsive updating of an existing packet flow log entry.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not address this issue, and neither side argues that it might affect the patentability analysis or otherwise change the outcome. Thus, as 2 Sourcefire 3D System User Guide, Ver. 4.10, Mar. 16, 2011 (Ex. 1004). 3 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0207809 A1 (Ex. 1029). we did at institution, we apply Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan, as we find it consistent with the ’917 patent and the asserted prior art. B.” slip op. at 11

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

    “1. Threat Identifier and Threat Indicator Patent Owner identifies two terms that were construed in the ITC investigation involving the ’917 patent based on constructions agreed upon by the parties. PO Resp. 9. First, the parties in the ITC investigation agreed that “threat identifier” means “information that identifies one or more network threats.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 2004, 3). Second, the parties further agreed that “threat indicator” means “information that indicates a resource associated with a network threat,” “[f]or example, network addresses, ports, FQDNs, URLs, URIs, the type of threat, geographic information, anonymous proxies, actors, or the like.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 2004, 3). Patent Owner asserts that these constructions should be used in this proceeding. Id. at 12. Petitioner does not dispute these constructions, and we adopt them.4” slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “Before we get to claim construction, we exclude Ex. 2018 as untimely because Patent Owner had the testimony before it filed the Response and was plainly aware of it, as it was alluded to in the Response. See PO Resp. 10; Mot. to Exclude Opp. 2 (admitting that the trial finished before the Response was filed and that Patent Owner filed other testimony excerpts with the Response). However, the exclusion is of little consequence because we find that the testimony would be devoid of probative value. Dr. Rubin is not a fact witness and has not been offered as an expert in this case. Patent Owner cites the testimony in an effort to show that Petitioner is taking inconsistent positions, but we fail to see how Petitioner’s conduct bears on the meaning of “flow” in the ’917 patent.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner

    “Before we get to claim construction, we exclude Ex. 2018 as untimely because Patent Owner had the testimony before it filed the Response and was plainly aware of it, as it was alluded to in the Response. See PO Resp. 10; Mot. to Exclude Opp. 2 (admitting that the trial finished before the Response was filed and that Patent Owner filed other testimony excerpts with the Response). However, the exclusion is of little consequence because we find that the testimony would be devoid of probative value. Dr. Rubin is not a fact witness and has not been offered as an expert in this case. Patent Owner cites the testimony in an effort to show that Petitioner is taking inconsistent positions, but we fail to see how Petitioner’s conduct bears on the meaning of “flow” in the ’917 patent.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 10,193,917 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,193,917
• Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 3, 2022 · IPR2021-00453 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7, and 15–23 are unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds; claims 3–6 and 8–14 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that challenged claims 1, 2, 7, and 15–23 are unpatentable and that Petitioner has not demonstrated challenged claims 3–6 and 8–14 to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “7 The level of ordinary skill in this case is discussed in the Decision to Institute and is uncontested. Dec. to Inst. 7–8.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Specification concerning the terms “identify” and “detect” involve actions not recited in the claims does not change the fact that these different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. The dictionary definitions of “detect” and “identify” are different. The use of the term “identify” in claims 3 and 8 and the use of a different term, i.e., “detect,” in claim 16 indicates that the claims 3 and 8 mean something different from claim 16. Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption that different claim terms have matter. See SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, 820 F.3d 419, 431 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, we decline to adopt Petitioner’s proposal to construe the terms “identify an object” and “detect an object” to have the same meaning. Instead, we construe these terms consistent with the dictionary definitions of “identify” and “detect,” i.e., we construe “to identify an object” to mean “to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing,” and we construe “to detect an object” to mean “to discover or notice the existence or presence of something.” We address the specific implications of these constructions in our discussion of claims 3, 8, and 16.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Specification concerning the terms “identify” and “detect” involve actions not recited in the claims does not change the fact that these different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. The dictionary definitions of “detect” and “identify” are different. The use of the term “identify” in claims 3 and 8 and the use of a different term, i.e., “detect,” in claim 16 indicates that the claims 3 and 8 mean something different from claim 16. Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption that different claim terms have matter. See SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, 820 F.3d 419, 431 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, we decline to adopt Petitioner’s proposal to construe the terms “identify an object” and “detect an object” to have the same meaning. Instead, we construe these terms consistent with the dictionary definitions of “identify” and “detect,” i.e., we construe “to identify an object” to mean “to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing,” and we construe “to detect an object” to mean “to discover or notice the existence or presence of something.” We address the specific implications of these constructions in our discussion of claims 3, 8, and 16.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 10,517,484 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,517,484
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2022 · IPR2020-01282 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 8–10 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 8–10 are anticipated by Goodnick, and claims 4 and 5 are obvious. The other challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The Patent Owner Preliminary Response did not comment on the level of ordinary skill in the art. In our Institution Decision, we were persuaded that Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill is appropriate for the subject matter of the ’395 patent and applied it in that Decision. Inst. Dec. 9–10. The Patent Owner Response does not comment on the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. Thus, we apply the description of the level of ordinary skill set forth in the Petition in this Decision. Ex. 1126, Schubert Decl. ¶ 66.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s proposed construction by providing the following definition for the phrase “depinning the Fermi level”: By depinning the Fermi level, the present inventors mean a condition wherein all, or substantially all, dangling bonds that may otherwise be present at the semiconductor surface have been terminated, and the effect of MIGS has been overcome, or at least reduced, by displacing the semiconductor a sufficient distance from the metal. Ex. 1101, 3:36–41. In view of this definition in the Specification and the parties’ agreement in pre-institution briefing, we construed the phrase “depin a Fermi level of the metal electrical contact in the vicinity of the junction” as “passivate the semiconductor surface and reduce the effects of metal-induced gap states in the semiconductor” in our Institution Decision. Patent Owner has not requested that we modify that construction. See generally PO Resp. Thus, we maintain it.” slip op. at 12

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. An Interface Layer Comprising a Metal Oxide and a Semiconductor Oxide In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argued that, in the related litigation, Petitioner and Patent Owner agreed to construe the phrase an “interface layer comprising a metal oxide and a semiconductor oxide” as “said interface layer comprising a layer of a metal oxide and a distinct layer of a semiconductor oxide.” Prelim. Resp. 35 (citing Ex. 2009). Patent Owner asserted that the district court adopted that construction. Id. (citing Ex. 2053, 27). In our Institution Decision, we found that the record supported Patent Owner’s arguments. Inst. Dec. 13 (citing Ex. 2009; Ex. 2053, 27). Further, in our Institution Decision, we noted that no party argued that we should construe the phrase differently than the district court. Id. Thus, we construed “an interface layer comprising a metal oxide and a semiconductor oxide” as “said interface layer comprising a layer of a metal oxide and a distinct layer of a semiconductor oxide.” Id. No party has requested that we modify this construction. See generally PO Resp., Pet. Reply. Thus, we maintain it.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Taken in context, we agree with Dr. Schubert that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Goodnick to refer to Al2O3 as a distinct layer. Ex. 1126, Schubert Decl. ¶ 85; Ex. 1173, Schubert Reply Decl. ¶ 86. Referring to Fig. 8(a), Goodnick states that in an unheated sample with an air grown oxide “[i]t appears that Si has diffused into the Al and collected at the Al2O3-Al interface at the surface. No buildup of Al2O3 is seen at the Al- Si interface.” Ex. 1121, 5. Noting that Fig. 8(b) is a profile of an unheated sample with 30Å of SiO2 at the interface, Goodnick states “[i]n contrast to the air exposed sample, an Al2O3 layer exists at the Al-SiO2-Si interface.” Id. Petitioner notes that, on cross-examination, Dr. Goodnick acknowledged (i) that the Al metal layer would diffuse into the SiO2 interface layer and reduce the portion of the SiO2 layer nearest the Al layer to Al2O3, (ii) that once the Al2O3 layer forms, it would be difficult for aluminum atoms to diffuse through the Al2O3 layer to continue reaction with the SiO2 layer, and (iii) because the reaction is self-limiting, a portion of the original SiO2 layer would remain once the reaction forming the Al2O3 layer stopped. Pet. Reply 6–7 (citing Ex. 1168, Goodnick Tr. 55:5–25, 57:19– 58:8, 59:24–60:7, 81:4–8). In view of, inter alia, Dr. Goodnick’s cross- examination testimony, we are persuaded by Dr. Schubert’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that distinct layers of Al2O3 and SiO2 are formed. Ex. 1173, Schubert Reply Decl. ¶¶ 85–98.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,090,395 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,090,395
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01279 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 13 are unpatentable as anticipated by Goodnick; claim 4 is unpatentable as obvious over Goodnick and Jammy. The other challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “resistivity” and “specific contact resistance” to be interchangeable. Dec. to Inst. 12. Neither party disagrees with this construction, and we apply the same construction for purposes of the Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Although Patent Owner contends Dr. Goodnick’s declaration did not open the door for general questioning about metal oxides (PO Opp. 2–3), we agree with Petitioner that the proper scope of cross examination includes Dr. Goodnick’s understanding of what constitutes a distinct layer. A primary issue raised by Patent Owner against Petitioner’s challenge that Goodnick anticipates is that, notwithstanding its use of the term layer, Goodnick does not teach distinct layers that are required by the claim. See Section VI.B. One of those layers is a metal oxide layer (Ex. 1101, claim 1), in particular a titanium oxide layer (claim 6). In view of Dr. Goodnick’s checkerboard analogy in his declaration, it was proper for Petitioner to question Dr. Goodnick about the extent of materials in the checkerboard. Both parties argue there may be implications of Dr. Goodnick’s testimony for purposes of infringement litigation. See Pet. Opp. 4–6; PO Reply 3–4. We do not address those implications. The issue before us is whether Goodnick would have taught or suggested to a person of ordinary skill the limitations of the claims, which the parties agree include distinct layers of metal oxide and other semiconductor oxide. See Section VI.B. As Dr. Goodnick testified that his article did not teach such distinct layers, it was proper for Petitioner to explore Dr. Goodnick’s views concerning the composition of a layer during cross examination. In consideration of the above, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude the Goodnick Metal Oxide testimony is denied.” slip op. at 48

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Taken in context, we agree that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Goodnick to refer to Al2O3 as a distinct layer. Referring to Fig. 8(a), Goodnick states that in an unheated sample with an air grown oxide “[i]t appears that Si has diffused into the Al and collected at the Al2O3- Al interface at the surface. No buildup of Al2O3 is seen at the Al-Si interface.” Ex. 1116, 953. Noting that Fig. 8(b) is a profile of an unheated sample with 30Å of SiO2 at the interface, Goodnick states “[i]n contrast to the air exposed sample, an Al2O3 layer exists at the Al-SiO2-Si interface.” Id. Petitioner notes that, on cross examination, Dr. Goodnick acknowledged (i) that the Al metal layer would diffuse into the SiO2 interface layer and reduce the portion of the SiO2 layer nearest the Al layer to Al2O3, (ii) that once the Al2O3 layer forms, it would be difficult for aluminum atoms to diffuse through the Al2O3 layer to continue reaction with the SiO2 layer, and (iii) because the reaction is self-limiting, a portion of the original SiO2 layer would remain once the reaction forming the Al2O3 layer stopped. Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1168, Goodnick Tr. 55:5–25, 57:19– 58:8, 59:24–60:7). In view of, inter alia, Dr. Goodnick’s cross examination testimony, we are persuaded by Dr. Schubert’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that distinct layers of Al2O3 and SiO2 are formed. Ex. 1173 ¶¶ 85–98.” slip op. at 20

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

    “that “the semiconductor region comprises an n-typed doped source or drain of a transistor.” Acknowledging that Goodnick “does not expressly disclose that its n-doped silicon semiconductor region ‘comprises an n-type source or drain of a transistor,’” Petitioner cites Jammy as disclosing this feature. Pet. 27. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Goodnick and Jammy because Goodnick describes contact metallization processes for semiconductor devices and Jammy describes a semiconductor device. Id. at 28. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s challenge to claim 4 based on the combined teachings of Goodnick and Jammy fails because it is premised on Goodnick teaching a stratified layer of Al2O3 distinct from SiO2. PO Resp. 60. As discussed above, we find that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Goodnick to disclose this feature. See Section VI.B. In consideration of the above, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Goodnick and Jammy and that the combined teachings of Goodnick and Jammy would have suggested the limitations of claim 4 to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 9,905,691 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,905,691
• Target Corporation v. Proxicom Wireless, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2021 · IPR2020-00933 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Perttila and Insolia; claims 25, 26, 28, and 29 were not shown unpatentable over Perttila and Davis.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, or a related field, and approximately 3-5 years of professional experience in the field of wireless communications.” Pet. 14. Petitioner acknowledges that “graduate education could substitute for professional experience” and “significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–38). Patent Owner concedes that the level of skill as defined by Petitioner “is sufficient for the Board to evaluate the Petition Grounds.” PO Resp. 9.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Notwithstanding the arguments in its briefing, Petitioner’s counsel acknowledged during the hearing that the claims require the entity or object to have a physical presence. See, e.g., Tr. 8:17–19 (“[T]here’s no debate . . . that physical presence is connoted by the word ‘proximity’ and by ‘located.’”). There is, accordingly, no controversy regarding whether “an entity or object located in proximity to the second device” requires the entity or object to have a physical presence. Moreover, as explained below our decision does not depend on an express construction of this term. We conclude, therefore, that there is no need for us to construe this term.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “terminal 12, interaction terminal 14, and loyalty server 24. Ex. 1008, 5:47–64, Fig. 1. The personal terminal is transported by user 16. Id. at 5:65–66. The interaction terminal can be associated with product 18, such as a beverage, equipment 20, such as a vending machine, or promotional object 22, such as a poster. Id. at 5:51–53, 6:9–37. The personal terminal and the interaction terminal communicate when the personal terminal is brought within proximity of the interaction terminal. Id. at 9:12–18. A benefit, such as a loyalty point, can be awarded to the user for interacting with the interaction terminal. Id. at 9:58–64. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that incorporating Insolia’s reward of loyalty points into Perttila’s system would provide incentives for a customer to engage with the merchant-media arrangement. Ex. 1003 ¶ 120. We credit this testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, which Patent Owner does not rebut. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Perttila and Insolia support Petitioner’s contentions. We further determine that Petitioner has set forth reasoning with rational underpinning for modifying Perttila to include a loyalty reward system as taught by Insolia.” slip op. at 25

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

    “terminal 12, interaction terminal 14, and loyalty server 24. Ex. 1008, 5:47–64, Fig. 1. The personal terminal is transported by user 16. Id. at 5:65–66. The interaction terminal can be associated with product 18, such as a beverage, equipment 20, such as a vending machine, or promotional object 22, such as a poster. Id. at 5:51–53, 6:9–37. The personal terminal and the interaction terminal communicate when the personal terminal is brought within proximity of the interaction terminal. Id. at 9:12–18. A benefit, such as a loyalty point, can be awarded to the user for interacting with the interaction terminal. Id. at 9:58–64. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that incorporating Insolia’s reward of loyalty points into Perttila’s system would provide incentives for a customer to engage with the merchant-media arrangement. Ex. 1003 ¶ 120. We credit this testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, which Patent Owner does not rebut. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Perttila and Insolia support Petitioner’s contentions. We further determine that Petitioner has set forth reasoning with rational underpinning for modifying Perttila to include a loyalty reward system as taught by Insolia.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,374,592 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,374,592
• Target Corporation v. Proxicom Wireless, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2021 · IPR2020-00931 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31, 36, 42, 48, 49, and 52–55 are unpatentable over Perttila alone or Perttila and Insolia; claims 37 and 43 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We instituted trial based on all asserted claims and grounds of unpatentability as follows: Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31, 36, 37, 42, 43, 102(b)3 Perttila 48, 52, 55 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31, 36, 37, 42, 43, 103(a) Perttila 48, 49, 52, 55 27, 31, 53, 54” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner concedes that the level of skill as defined by Petitioner “is generally sufficient for the Board to evaluate the Petition Grounds.” PO Resp. 9. However, Patent Owner also notes that “Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art does not include any reference to electronic commerce” and contends that “a POSITA should also have 1-2 years of experience designing or implementing systems for electronic commerce including the use of wireless communications.”5 Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 6–9, 22–24). The level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). The level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner appears to be consistent with that of the references, and we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision. We note that we would reach the same conclusions herein using Patent Owner’s alternate definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Notwithstanding the arguments in its briefing, Petitioner’s counsel acknowledged during the hearing that the claims require the entity or object to have a physical presence. See, e.g., Tr. 8:17–19 (“[T]here’s no debate . . . that physical presence is connoted by the word ‘proximity’ and by ‘located.’”). There is, accordingly, no controversy regarding whether “an entity or object located in proximity to the second device” requires the entity or object to have a physical presence. Moreover, as explained below our decision does not depend on an express construction of this term. We conclude, therefore, that there is no need for us to construe this term. 2. “wireless device” Patent Owner argues that, as recited in the challenged claims, “wireless device” “refer[s] to wireless communication capabilities, not that a wireless device would be precluded from having any external wires whatsoever.” PO Resp. 19. However, Patent Owner concedes that construction of “wireless device” is “not necessary to resolve the dispute here.” Id. Petitioner argues that “‘wireless device’ should be construed to require a device without external wires,” noting that the claims of the ’359 patent recite a “wireless device” rather than a “wireless communication device.” Pet. Reply 5–6. However, Petitioner also concedes that “no construction of this term is necessary.” Id. at 5. No construction of this term is necessary. The parties both agree that no construction is needed, and as explained below our decision does not depend on a construction of this term.” slip op. at 12

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

    “As noted above, Petitioner maps Perttila’s disclosure of “electronic coupon information including various offerings” to the recited “list of goods” and notes that the merchant-media device can be located in a store where the advertised goods are sold. Pet. 51–52 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26, 39); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant identifies adequately any “list of goods” that Perttila’s remote server delivers to the first wireless device. At best, Petitioner and its declarant describe an iterative process whereby a user interacts with a plurality of tags or beacons in a store to receive multiple electronic coupons. Pet. Reply 17–18; Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, Petitioner fails to explain adequately how delivering coupons one at a time in an iterative process constitutes delivering a list of goods as part of an electronic commerce transaction. Petitioner also refers to Perttila’s disclosure of delivering a restaurant menu. Pet. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, Petitioner and its declarant again fail to explain adequately how sending a restaurant menu constitutes delivering a list of goods as a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction. Perttila discloses that, in embodiments, the billboard may promote a food product and the user’s interaction with the billboard results in the server sending “a restaurant menu or a recipe involving that particular food or food type.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 26. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant explain adequately how this constitutes a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction. Notably, Petitioner and its declarant fail to identify any discussion or suggestion in Perttila of the user interacting with the menu after it has been delivered. Nor do we see any such disclosure in Perttila. Rather, Perttila merely discloses sending a restaurant menu as part of “electronic coupon information”: “In another application, the billboard may be promoting a food product, and the request to the remote server corresponds to a request for receiving electronic coupon information including, for example, a restaurant menu or a recipe involving that particular food or food type.” Id. Moreover, we note that Petitioner does not propose to modify Perttila’s system in some manner such that a user could interact with the delivered menu as part of an electronic commerce transaction. Petitioner also refers to Perttila’s disclosure of delivering a movie ticket. Pet. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 44–50); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 177. However, Petitioner and its declarant again fail to explain adequately how sending an electronic movie ticket constitutes delivering a list of goods as a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction. Perttila discloses that its system may be used to purchase a movie ticket that is redeemed “at a time much later than the time when the electronic coupon is received.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 44. Perttila discloses purchasing the movie ticket and later using a menu displayed on the user’s mobile phone to activate and validate the ticket at the theater. E.g., id. ¶¶ 46–50. Petitioner fails to explain persuasively how delivering an electronic movie ticket in the manner disclosed by Perttila constitutes delivering a list of goods as a step in a process for an electronic commerce transaction.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 8,090,359 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,090,359
• 3shape A/S / 3shape Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 16, 2020 · IPR2019-00152 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15 and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Picard; claims 1–14 and 16–19 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In view of our analysis below, we need not construe expressly any claim language to resolve the parties’ patentability dispute. The Petition’s first challenge asserts obviousness of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 over Picard and Ishihara. Pet. 18–39. As explained in greater detail below in Section III.B.3, this challenge rests on a contention that it would have been obvious to modify Picard to use telecentric optics like those taught in Ishihara. Id. at 32–38. With respect to the challenge of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 over Picard and Ishihara, the Petition does not explain any theory of unpatentability that does not rely on the assertion that it would have been obvious to modify Picard with telecentric optics based on Ishihara. Id. at 18–39. Thus, the merits of this challenge inextricably depend on whether Petitioner has demonstrated adequately that it would have been obvious to modify Picard with telecentic optics based on Ishihara. For the reasons explained below in Section III.B.3, Petitioner has not done so. Therefore, Petitioner’s challenge of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 14 over Picard and Ishihara fails for reasons unrelated to claim construction.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree that the law does not require Petitioner to show a person of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the proposed modification as the most preferred or desirable approach. The law does, however, require Petitioner to show not only that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the references in the proposed manner, but that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the references’ teachings in the proposed manner. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Here, Petitioner does not do so.” slip op. at 25

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Thus, Picard expressly discloses that the embodiment discussed in connection with Figure 8 includes the components and features shown and discussed in connection with Figure 3, plus all of the components and features shown and discussed in connection with Figure 8. Accordingly, the Petition cites to Picard’s discussions of Figures 3 as providing details regarding certain components and features that Picard discloses are also included in the embodiment of Figure 8. Pet. 20–23, 26–30, 39–41. In view of Picard’s express teaching to combine the features of Figures 3 and 8 and explanation of how they should be combined (Ex. 1003, 24:9–17) and Petitioner’s reliance on these same features to show anticipation (Pet. 20–23, 26–30, 39–41), we find no merit in Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not identify any motivation to combine Picard’s discussions of Figures 3 and 8.11 See Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] reference need not always include an express discussion of the actual combination to anticipate. . . . Instead, a reference may still anticipate if that reference teaches that the disclosed components or functionalities may be combined and one of skill in the art would be able to implement the combination.”) (citing Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F. 3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). In sum, Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Picard anticipates claims 15 and 20.” slip op. at 32

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “have foreseen Patent Owner’s argument does not justify its insufficient explanation and lack of evidence in the Petition. As Patent Owner argues, its ITC brief, filed approximately a month before the Petition was filed, provided effective notice of Patent Owner’s position that there would have been issues using Gmitro’s fiber-optic bundle to carry the plurality of light beams used in Tiziani. Id. Moreover, even without such express notice, Petitioner should have recognized the requirement that its Petition must “identif[y], in writing and with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). The Petition was also required to include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing laws, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2). The Petition fails to meet these requirements with respect to its assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Gmitro’s fiber-optic bundle with Tiziani’s confocal imaging system and microlens array. It is “improper for a reply to present new evidence (including new expert testimony) that could have been presented in a prior filing.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 74– 75 (citing Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1365–69 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Petitioner does not provide any persuasive reason that the evidence it presented with its Reply to bolster its assertion of a reasonable expectation of success could not have been provided with the Petition. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner exceeded the proper scope of a reply with its newly presented arguments on pages 24– 27 of the Reply and with the its new citations of portions of the ’901 Patent (Ex. 1001, 5:46–48, 5:52–58, 6:2–6, 7:62–8:13, Fig. 1A), Picard (Ex. 1003, 25–26), Gmitro’s title (Ex. 1005, title), Dr. Sergienko’s new testimony (Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 23–28), and Exhibits 1038 and 1039. For all of the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not carried its burden of showing that claims 1, 2, 7–9, 14, 15, and 20 would have been obvious over Tiziani, Gmitro, and Ishihara.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 9,615,901 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,615,901
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 18, 2020 · IPR2018-01760 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10–12, 14–21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire; claims 8, 9, 13, 22, and 23 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In its Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art.3 Based on the complete trial record, we find 3 Dr. Orso testified to a slightly different description of the level of skill in the art (Ex. 2002 ¶ 36), but Patent Owner did not argue during trial that Dr. Orso’s description should be adopted instead of Petitioner’s description and waived any such argument as a result. See In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 Dr. Staniford’s testimony credible and persuasive (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–24), and we adopt Petitioner’s definition as a result. B.” slip op. at 7

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

    “an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily construed the term “network-threat indicator” as an “indicator that represents the identity of a resource associated with a network threat.” Inst. Dec. 8. During trial, neither party disputed this preliminary construction. See PO Resp. 25; Pet. Reply 7–8; Tr. 10:22–11:9. We do not discern any evidence in the full record after trial indicating that this construction is incorrect or should be modified. Moreover, the Specification supports this construction, indicating that “network addresses, ports, fully qualified domain names (FQDNs), uniform resource locators (URLs), uniform resource identifiers (URIs), or the like” are examples of “network-threat indicators.” Ex. 1001, 3:18–26. Thus, we apply this construction in this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the above facts and case law, we conclude that Sourcefire was publicly accessible. The evidence of record indicates that the Sourcefire 3D System was publicly marketed and sold, and that the Sourcefire reference was actually distributed to over 500 customers of the Sourcefire 3D System. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 11, 19; Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 5–9. This vastly exceeds the distribution to six people in MIT and distribution of 80 copies in Garrett. Record evidence also supports Petitioner’s contention that the customers who received Sourcefire included entities interested in network security products, including persons of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 1042 ¶ 9; see also Ex. 1004, 1, 32–33 (identifying Sourcefire as a “User Guide” and indicating Sourcefire provides information for network administrators); Ex. 1005 ¶ 5 (indicating Sourcefire was drafted in consultation with, and reviewed by, engineers who designed the Sourcefire system). Moreover, similar to MIT and as discussed in Medtronic, the record indicates that the recipients of Sourcefire were not subject to confidentiality requirements restricting use or further distribution. See Ex. 1004, 2 (Sourcefire copyright page stating, “You may use . . . and otherwise copy and distribute [Sourcefire] solely for non-commercial use”).5 Although Patent Owner asserts that MIT and Klopfenstein are distinguishable because they involved “the free distribution of academic documents to conference and meeting attendees” (PO Sur-reply 7), case law indicates that distribution to commercial entities also may be sufficient. See Garrett, 422 F.2d at 878; Pet. Reply 3.6” slip op. at 15

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

    “Id. at 65. These largely conclusory arguments, however, fail to explain how refreshing an event view or event summary page, whether at a regular interval or otherwise, teaches generating different types of log entries at the same time for different portions of packets in the manner claimed. The cited testimony of Dr. Staniford does not provide any further illumination, instead repeating essentially the same conclusory statements made in the Petition. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 162, 173; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Petitioner’s Reply also fails to supply the necessary explanation or supporting evidence. Petitioner notes that “flow-log entries are generated from the packet-logs”—thus, flow-log entries must be generated after the corresponding packet-log entries and would reflect any changes made to those entries. Pet. Reply 19–21. Although true, these facts pertain only to a single portion of packets, i.e., that their packet-log entries are generated first, and that the related flow-log entries are generated afterward. The same is true even considering that this process can occur at a predetermined “refresh interval.” Petitioner does not identify any specific teaching or suggestion in Sourcefire that indicates how the generation of log entries for two different portions of packets would operate. Instead, Petitioner relies on a bare assertion—without any specific basis in Sourcefire—that “the processing of the packet-logs and the flow-logs are continually being updated or refreshed.” Without sufficient supporting evidence, that bare assertion and the conclusory testimony of Dr. Staniford are inadequate to meet Petitioner’s burden to prove the unpatentability of these claims by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,413,722 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,413,722

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.