- PTAB · Mar 25, 2026 · IPR2024-01380 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled original claims 1–10 and granted substitute claims 11–19 because Petitioner did not prove claim 11 obvious over Torrence and Piepho.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportGranted
“relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure.” Id. “[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. “In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Ind. Co., Ltd. v/ Int’l Trade Com’n, 535 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (citing Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “This inquiry . . . is a question of fact.” Id. (citing Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Further, inventions in the mechanical and electrical-based arts usually involve predictable factors and can be more predictable than other fields, such as chemistry and biology. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839 (CCPA 1970);” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“D. Claim Construction We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“[c]ombin[e] the tapered region of Piepho with the shaft of Torrence, the tapered region would extend from an uppermost extremity of the shaft.” RMTA Opp. 9. But, Petitioner concedes that neither reference discloses a tapered region extending from the uppermost extremity. Petitioner argues that Torrence’s shaft is straight (Amended RMTA Sur-reply 9) and that “[t]he tapered region of Piepho does not extend to the extreme end of the shaft.” RMTA Opp. 11 (emphasis added). Because neither Torrence nor Piepho discloses a shaft with a tapered region that “extends from an uppermost extremity of the shaft,” we find that the combination of Torrence and Piepho does not teach limitation 11[a]. We now analyze whether Petitioner provides reasoning with a rational underpinning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Torrence with Piepho to extend Torrence’s taper from the upper extremity of its shaft. slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,827,568 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2025-00954 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3 and 8–19 are unpatentable: claim 3 is anticipated by Yu and obvious over Okashita, Okashita and Yu, and Burgener and Okashita; claims 8–19 are obvious over Burgener and Okashita, with or without Yu.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“ORDER For the foregoing reasons, ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion to Amend (Paper 19) is granted, and claims 1, 2, and 4–7 are canceled;” slip op. at 37
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of ordinary skill, arguing that a bachelor’s degree, not a master’s degree, is all that is required because that is the “target audience for the ’886 Patent.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner does not otherwise dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Id. We used Petitioner’s proposed definition in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 13. Neither party argues any issue as dependent on the level of ordinary skill or the differences between the proposals. Accordingly, the issues here are not dependent on the level of ordinary skill and the result is the same regardless of which definition is adopted. On this record, there is no reason to change from Petitioner’s definition used in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“transistors” as a term that might require construction during trial. Inst. Dec. 17–18. At the hearing, the Petitioner argued that “cascaded transistors” means “[ar]ranged in a series of or in succession of stages so that each stage derives from or acts upon the product of the preceding [transistor]” and that there is no dispute that the limitation is taught by the prior art. Tr. 9:15–22. Patent Owner takes no position as to whether or not the prior art discloses “cascaded transistors.” Id. at 33:13–21 (“For the remainder of this proceeding, post institution, we have not taken any position regarding the scope of the cascaded transistors or the disclosure of the cascaded transistors in any of the prior art. We have not disputed that.”). Because Patent Owner takes no position on the issue, there is no dispute that “cascaded transistors” are shown in the prior art, construction is not necessary. Realtime, 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. original)). 2. “isolated island” Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contention that the prior art teaches or suggests claim 3’s recitation of “said plurality of cascaded transistors is situated within an isolated island.” Pet. 35–36; PO Resp. 16–17. Although the parties dispute whether an “isolated island” is shown in the prior art, neither party proposes a construction for the term “isolated island.” We agree that the arguments presented do not require construction of “isolated island.” The issues can be determined on the plain meaning of the term in view of the arguments made. See Section II.D below.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown Yu is analogous art to Okashita. Both references are directed to the manufacture of semiconductors, which we find to be the field of endeavor. Ex. 1004, 1:47– 58; Ex. 1005, 1:16–26. More specifically, we agree with Petitioner and find that both references are in the same field of endeavor because they relate to SOI configuration. Pet. Reply 6 (citing Pet. 7–8, 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–80, 90–91). Because we find the references relied upon are in the same field of endeavor, we need not reach whether they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,745,886 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,745,886 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01402 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 3 and 8–19 unpatentable: claim 3 was anticipated by Yu and obvious on the stated grounds, and claims 3 and 8–19 were obvious over Burgener and Okashita, with or without Yu.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,745,886 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’886 patent”). Petitioner filed a Declaration of Dr. Scott E. Thompson, Ph.D., in support of the Petition. Ex. 1002 (“Thompson Dec.”). Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On April 4, 2025, we instituted this inter partes review as to the Challenged Claims and all grounds presented in the Petition. Paper 9 (“Inst. Dec.”). Following institution, Patent Owner filed a Response to the Petition (“PO Resp.”) limited to the patentability of the challenged claims. Paper 18. In support of the Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner filed a Declaration of John Berg. Ex. 2006. Patent Owner also filed an Unopposed Motion to Amend, cancelling claims 1, 2, and 4–7. Paper 19 (“Mot.”). We grant the motion. This proceeding is therefore limited to the patentability of claims 3 and 8–19 (“challenged claims”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of ordinary skill, arguing that a bachelor’s degree, not a master’s degree, is all that is required because that is the “target audience for the ’886 Patent.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner does not otherwise dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Id. We used Petitioner’s proposed definition in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 13. Neither party argues any issue as dependent on the level of ordinary skill or the differences between the proposals. Accordingly, the issues here are not dependent on the level of ordinary skill and the result is the same regardless of which definition is adopted. On this record, there is no reason to change from Petitioner’s definition used in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“transistors” as a term that might require construction during trial. Inst. Dec. 17–18. At the hearing, the Petitioner argued that “cascaded transistors” means “[ar]ranged in a series of or in succession of stages so that each stage derives from or acts upon the product of the preceding [transistor]” and that there is no dispute that the limitation is taught by the prior art. Tr. 9:15–22. Patent Owner takes no position as to whether or not the prior art discloses “cascaded transistors.” Id. at 33:13–21 (“For the remainder of this proceeding, post institution, we have not taken any position regarding the scope of the cascaded transistors or the disclosure of the cascaded transistors in any of the prior art. We have not disputed that.”). Because Patent Owner takes no position on the issue, there is no dispute that “cascaded transistors” are shown in the prior art, construction is not necessary. Realtime, 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. original)). 2. “isolated island” Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contention that the prior art teaches or suggests claim 3’s recitation of “said plurality of cascaded transistors is situated within an isolated island.” Pet. 35–36; PO Resp. 16–17. Although the parties dispute whether an “isolated island” is shown in the prior art, neither party proposes a construction for the term “isolated island.” We agree that the arguments presented do not require construction of “isolated island.” The issues can be determined on the plain meaning of the term in view of the arguments made. See Section II.D below.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successAnalogous artMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown Yu is analogous art to Okashita. Both references are directed to the manufacture of semiconductors, which we find to be the field of endeavor. Ex. 1004, 1:47– 58; Ex. 1005, 1:16–26. More specifically, we agree with Petitioner and find that both references are in the same field of endeavor because they relate to SOI configuration. Pet. Reply 6 (citing Pet. 7–8, 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–80, 90–91). Because we find the references relied upon are in the same field of endeavor, we need not reach whether they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. We also find that Petitioner has shown rational underpinnings for combining Okashita and Yu. Pet. 43–44. That the references have differences is not the test. Rather, the test is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to combine them. We find there is sufficient motivation. Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:4–17; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 177– 178). 3. Conclusion on Ground 3 Patent Owner does not argue any other reason that Ground 3 has not been sufficiently shown. Based on the full record, we determine that Okashita and Yu teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 3 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success. We thus determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 3 would have been obvious over the combination of Okashita and Yu.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,745,886 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,745,886 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00207 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Director review
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–7, 11–14, and 16–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsDirector review decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“Petitioner filed a request for Director Review of the Decision granting Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and denying institution (“Decision,” Paper 10) and Patent Owner filed an authorized response. See Paper 121 (“DR Request”); Paper 13 (“Patent Owner Response”). The Director granted the DR Request and referred the Petition to the Board “to handle the case in the normal course, including by issuing a decision on institution addressing the merits and other non-discretionary considerations, as appropriate.” Paper 14 (“Order Granting Director Review”).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”) We therefore institute inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’228 patent and all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability. See SAS Inst. Inc. v Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 364–65 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (a)” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“As noted above, Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response and thus does not respond at this time. Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of our Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“a “single caching agent,” which is recited in claim 1 here. ’1344 IPR, Paper 31 (“Final Written Decision”), 16–18. We concluded that a “‘single caching agent’ means ‘one caching agent for the processor, which may be formed from distributed portions.’” Id. at 18.” slip op. at 14
Claim constructioncites KSR · NautilusPatents in suitUS 8,984,228 - PTAB · Jul 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00465 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–24 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Irwin renders at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we leave these matters for the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response, and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“We disagree. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the fact pattern presented here is not the typical situation in which the factors from General Plastic are considered. In particular, this proceeding challenges claims of a different patent than the patents at issue in PGR2020-00084 and IPR2023- 01235. Challenging claims of different patents significantly distinguishes the facts here from those in General Plastic, and we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to extend General Plastic in this regard. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we leave these matters for the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response, and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Weighing the Graham Factors “Once all relevant facts are found, the ultimate legal determination [of obviousness] involves the weighing of the fact findings to conclude whether the claimed combination would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan.” Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1361. On balance, considering the record presently before us, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that Irwin would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–9 and 11–24 of the ’451 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,488,451 - PTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01235 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–6 on all petition grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over Szrek and did not reach the Llach–Szrek ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“We disagree. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the fact pattern presented here is not the typical situation in which the factors from General Plastic are considered. In particular, this proceeding challenges claims of a different patent than at issue in IPR2020-00084. Second, although the parties may have gained insight as to how the Board would handle challenges based on the same references asserted in the earlier proceeding, that insight (to the extent it gives an advantage) applies to both parties. Third, the first proceeding was a post-grant review that had a specific timing requirement (see 35 U.S.C. § 321(c)), in contrast to the present proceeding in which the filing of the Petition did not have the same or similar time constraint.6 In these circumstances, we find it appropriate to give less weight to factors based on the mere passage of time such as whether Petitioner knew of the prior art at the time of filing the petition in PGR2020- 00084 (clearly Petitioner did because two of the same references are asserted here) and whether Petitioner had received Patent Owner’s preliminary response from PGR2020-00084 at the time of filing the instant Petition. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we do not dive headfirst into these matters that are better addressed by the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party of interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13).7 Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’135 patent and the prior art of record. 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). Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)). Petitioner contends that we should follow the Board’s decision in PGR2020-00084 and construe “transaction processor” and “data package” in accordance with each term’s plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 13; see id. at 13–19. Patent Owner does not take a position as to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. In PGR2020-00084, the Board construed “transaction processor”8 in accordance with its plain meaning as “a processor . . . that processes transactions between two devices” and specifically “decline[d] to limit processors . . . to ‘third party’ processors . . . because the intrinsic record does not justify such a modification and it would create uncertainty.” Ex. 1008, 22. And, as Petitioner indicates, the Board determined that “data package” also is understood in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 22–24; see id. at 24 n.10. At this stage of the proceeding 8 In that proceeding, the Board also construed “transaction processor system.” Ex. 1008, 13–22. and on the present record, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because none are in dispute. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,865,135 - Google LLC / Microsoft Corporation v. Carolyn W. HafemanAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2024 · IPR2022-01193 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Jenne and Cohen; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“c) Conclusion for Claim 1 We find that the combination of Jenne and Cohen teaches the subject matter recited in claim 1 and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Jenne and Cohen in the manner asserted by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the subject matter recited in claim 1. Patent Owner’s asserted objective evidence of non-obviousness lacks nexus and does not undermine Petitioner’s showing. Therefore, we conclude that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious based on the combined teachings of Jenne and Cohen.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or the equivalent and at least two years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., electronic communications systems. Significantly more practical experience could also qualify one not having the aforementioned education as a person of ordinary skill in the art while, conversely, a higher level of education could offset a lesser amount of experience. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 96). Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment or offer her own assessment. See PO Resp. To the extent necessary, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“As explained below, the combination of Jenne and Cohen teaches the content of the return/recovery information under Patent Owner’s construction, and, therefore, we need not resolve whether such information is entitled to patentable weight. Furthermore, as explained below, the combination of Jenne and Cohen teaches displaying the return/recovery information during or after every boot-up and teaches “owner” under Patent Owner’s construction. Therefore, because there are no claim construction disputes between the parties that affect the analysis of unpatentability based on the combination of Jenne and Cohen, we need not resolve these claim construction issues. 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 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not credit Dr. Schaefer’s testimony because it is inconsistent with Cohen’s disclosure. In particular, Cohen discloses “storing of the personal ownership indicia and password data within nonvolatile memory, such as ROM 26,” which Cohen states “is preferably implemented utilizing so-called ‘flash’ ROM or serial EEPROM, which may be electrically altered upon application of suitable control signals.” Ex. 1006, 3:44–47, 4:47–50. Thus, contrary to Dr. Schaefer’s testimony that Cohen states a preference for nonvolatile memory because it cannot be altered, Cohen expressly discloses using nonvolatile memory that can be altered, so that the system may not “be easily defeated by opening the case of portable computer device 10 and temporarily removing the battery, rendering this information erased.” Ex. 1006, 4:54–57. In further contrast to Dr. Schaefer’s testimony, Dr. Zadok testifies that Jenne also discloses storing information in nonvolatile memory, such as nonvolatile random access memory (NVRAM) or a flash ROM. Ex 1003 ¶ 319 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 23, 27, Fig. 3). Dr. Zadok persuasively testifies that Cohen’s disclosure of storing information in nonvolatile memory is consistent with Jenne’s disclosure. Ex. 1003 ¶ 308. We find Petitioner’s reasoning to combine Jenne and Cohen to be persuasive. As Petitioner correctly points out (Pet. 19), Cohen expressly teaches that the benefits of displaying owner information with a password prompt when the computer is started are that “the likelihood that a lost or misplaced personal computer device will be returned to its owner [is] greatly enhanced and [that] ownership of otherwise fungible devices may be easily determined.” Ex. 1006, 5:52–58; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 289 (Dr. Zadok testifying that Cohen’s disclosure shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to display owner information during boot-up). Thus, we find that Cohen’s express disclosure provides a rationale for a person of ordinary skill in the art to display a particular type of information, specifically owner information, in the system of Jenne. We agree with Petitioner, that “the combination would have involved a simple substitution of a known generic element (Jenne’s ‘other information’) with a specific type of information (Cohen’s ‘ownership indicia’) to obtain predictable results.” Pet. 20 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–16).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 9,892,287 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,892,287 - Google LLC / Microsoft Corporation v. Carolyn W. HafemanAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2024 · IPR2022-01190 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Jenne and Cohen; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds and granted consolidation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We do not credit Dr. Schaefer’s testimony because it is inconsistent with Cohen’s disclosure. In particular, Cohen discloses “storing of the personal ownership indicia and password data within nonvolatile memory, such as ROM 26,” which Cohen states “is preferably implemented utilizing so-called ‘flash’ ROM or serial EEPROM, which may be electrically altered upon application of suitable control signals.” Ex. 1006, 3:44–47, 4:47–50. Thus, contrary to Dr. Schaefer’s testimony that Cohen states a preference for nonvolatile memory because it cannot be altered, Cohen expressly discloses using nonvolatile memory that can be altered, so that the system may not “be easily defeated by opening the case of portable computer device 10 and temporarily removing the battery, rendering this information erased.” Ex. 1006, 4:54–57. Dr. Zadok testifies that Jenne also discloses storing information in nonvolatile memory, such as nonvolatile random access memory (NVRAM) or a flash ROM. Ex 1003 ¶ 310 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 23, 27, Fig. 3). Dr. Zadok testifies that Cohen’s disclosure of storing information in nonvolatile memory is consistent with Jenne’s disclosure. Id. ¶ 321. We find Petitioner’s reasoning to combine Jenne and Cohen to be persuasive. As Petitioner correctly points out (Pet. 19), Cohen expressly teaches that the benefits of displaying owner information with a password prompt when the computer is started are that “the likelihood that a lost or misplaced personal computer device will be returned to its owner [is] greatly enhanced and [that] ownership of otherwise fungible devices may be easily determined.” Ex. 1006, 5:52–58; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 292 (Dr. Zadok testifying that Cohen’s disclosure shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to display owner information during boot-up). Thus, we find that Cohen’s express disclosure provides a rationale for a person of ordinary skill in the art to display a particular type of information, specifically owner information, in the system of Jenne. We agree with Petitioner that “the combination would have involved a simple substitution of a known generic element (Jenne’s ‘other information’) with a specific type of information (Cohen’s ‘ownership indicia’) to obtain predictable results.” Pet. 20 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–16).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment or offer her own assessment. See PO Resp. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus, precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached
“As explained below, the combination of Jenne and Cohen teaches the content of the return/recovery information under Patent Owner’s construction, and, therefore, we need not resolve whether such information is entitled to patentable weight. Furthermore, as explained below, the combination of Jenne and Cohen teaches displaying the return/recovery information during or after every boot-up and teaches “owner” under Patent Owner’s construction. Therefore, because there are no claim construction disputes between the parties that affect the analysis of unpatentability based on the combination of Jenne and Cohen, we need not resolve these claim construction issues. 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 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not credit Dr. Schaefer’s testimony because it is inconsistent with Cohen’s disclosure. In particular, Cohen discloses “storing of the personal ownership indicia and password data within nonvolatile memory, such as ROM 26,” which Cohen states “is preferably implemented utilizing so-called ‘flash’ ROM or serial EEPROM, which may be electrically altered upon application of suitable control signals.” Ex. 1006, 3:44–47, 4:47–50. Thus, contrary to Dr. Schaefer’s testimony that Cohen states a preference for nonvolatile memory because it cannot be altered, Cohen expressly discloses using nonvolatile memory that can be altered, so that the system may not “be easily defeated by opening the case of portable computer device 10 and temporarily removing the battery, rendering this information erased.” Ex. 1006, 4:54–57. Dr. Zadok testifies that Jenne also discloses storing information in nonvolatile memory, such as nonvolatile random access memory (NVRAM) or a flash ROM. Ex 1003 ¶ 310 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 23, 27, Fig. 3). Dr. Zadok testifies that Cohen’s disclosure of storing information in nonvolatile memory is consistent with Jenne’s disclosure. Id. ¶ 321. We find Petitioner’s reasoning to combine Jenne and Cohen to be persuasive. As Petitioner correctly points out (Pet. 19), Cohen expressly teaches that the benefits of displaying owner information with a password prompt when the computer is started are that “the likelihood that a lost or misplaced personal computer device will be returned to its owner [is] greatly enhanced and [that] ownership of otherwise fungible devices may be easily determined.” Ex. 1006, 5:52–58; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 292 (Dr. Zadok testifying that Cohen’s disclosure shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to display owner information during boot-up). Thus, we find that Cohen’s express disclosure provides a rationale for a person of ordinary skill in the art to display a particular type of information, specifically owner information, in the system of Jenne. We agree with Petitioner that “the combination would have involved a simple substitution of a known generic element (Jenne’s ‘other information’) with a specific type of information (Cohen’s ‘ownership indicia’) to obtain predictable results.” Pet. 20 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–16).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,789,393 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,789,393 - Google LLC / Microsoft Corporation v. Carolyn W. HafemanAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2024 · IPR2022-01191 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Jenne and Cohen; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“I. INTRODUCTION In these inter partes reviews, Google LLC and Microsoft Corporation (collectively “Petitioner”) challenge the patentability of claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent 10,789,393 B2 (Ex. 1001 (“’393 patent”)), which is owned by Carolyn W. Hafeman (“Patent Owner”). Petitioner requests that we consolidate these cases. IPR2022-01190, Paper 24 at 1. Patent Owner opposes. IPR2022-01190, Paper 28 at 1. Because these cases address the same claims, we grant Petitioner’s request to consolidate them pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a). See also 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) (giving Director discretion to consolidate proceedings).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment or offer her own assessment. See PO Resp. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus, precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“security by keeping ownership indicia constant after the initial set-up or configuration change.” PO Resp. 32 (citing Ex. 2040 ¶ 54(b)). Patent Owner cites the following testimony from Dr. Schaefer to support this assertion: Cohen discloses a method where the owner enters “a textual indicia of personal ownership” “during set-up or during a configuration change.” Cohen is specifically designed to keep ownership indicia constant. Although Cohen states that ownership indicia can be stored in RAM or nonvolatile memory, Cohen makes clear that nonvolatile memory is preferred because it cannot be altered, whereas ownership information stored in the RAM could be “easily defeated” by removing the battery. Thus, Cohen’s objective is to keep its local ownership indicia constant after an initial set-up or configuration change. Ex. 2040 ¶ 54(b) (citing Ex. 1006, 2:31–35, 4:50–5:4); see PO Resp. 29 (quoting this testimony), 32 (citing this testimony). We do not credit Dr. Schaefer’s testimony because it is inconsistent with Cohen’s disclosure. In particular, Cohen discloses “storing of the personal ownership indicia and password data within nonvolatile memory, such as ROM 26,” which Cohen states “is preferably implemented utilizing so-called ‘flash’ ROM or serial EEPROM, which may be electrically altered upon application of suitable control signals.” Ex. 1006, 3:44–47, 4:47–50. Thus, contrary to Dr. Schaefer’s testimony that Cohen states a preference for nonvolatile memory because it cannot be altered, Cohen expressly discloses using nonvolatile memory that can be altered, so that the system may not “be easily defeated by opening the case of portable computer device 10 and temporarily removing the battery, rendering this information erased.” Ex. 1006, 4:54–57. Dr. Zadok testifies that Jenne also discloses storing information in nonvolatile memory, such as nonvolatile random access” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner argues that certain language in each independent claim should be interpreted to require the automatic display of certain information “during or after every boot-up.” Pet. 9–11. Second, Petitioner argues that the return and recovery information recited in the claims is merely printed matter that is not entitled to patentable weight. Pet. 12. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s claim construction arguments. PO Resp. 9–21. For her part, Patent Owner argues that the terms “computer recovery information,” “recovery information,” and “return information” mean “information provided by the owner so that the device can be returned to the owner,” and she argues that “owner” means “the person or entity that owns, rents, or licenses the recovery application or program, and/or the person or entity who controls the recovery service.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:33–34, 4:4–5, 4:49–51, 11:11–13; Ex. 2035, 6–7, 19–20). As explained below, the combination of Jenne and Cohen teaches the content of the return/recovery information under Patent Owner’s construction, and, therefore, we need not resolve whether such information is entitled to patentable weight. Furthermore, as explained below, the combination of Jenne and Cohen teaches displaying the return/recovery information during or after every boot-up and teaches “owner” under Patent Owner’s construction. Therefore, because there are no claim construction disputes between the parties that affect the analysis of unpatentability based on the combination of Jenne and Cohen, we need not resolve these claim construction issues. 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 7
Patent outcomesUS 10,789,393 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,789,393 - PTAB · Feb 8, 2023 · IPR2022-01335 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 19, 20, and 37–52 based on the §103 combination of Hardin and Salmre, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the Petition, the arguments presented in the Preliminary Response, as well as all supporting evidence, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge of at least one claim of the ’447 patent as unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review of all Challenged Claims of the ’447 patent on the ground stated in the Petition.” slip op. at 3
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“(1) Petitioner asserts that substantially the same two claim limitations lack written description support in the ’094 application and U.S. Patent Application No. 13/856,392 (“the ’392 application”) (compare Pet. 23–29, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4 (petition) at 23–28); (2) Petitioner asserts that because these limitations lack written description support in the ’094 and ’392 applications, the Challenged Claims are not entitled to the priority date of either of these applications and, therefore, Hardin ’665 (the pre-issuance publication of the ’094 application) is available as prior art to the Challenged Claims (compare Pet. 1, 2, 28–29, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4 at 1, 2, 28–29);” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“(3) Petitioner asserts that the same combination of references— Hardin ’665 and Salmre—would have rendered the subject matter of the claims challenged in each petition obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (compare Pet. 29–64, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4 at 29–66); (4) Petitioner asserts the same reasons with rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre as proposed with a reasonable expectation of success (compare Pet. 65–71, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 4 at 66–71);” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (compare Prelim. Resp. 61–66, with IPR2022-01333, Paper 9 at 61–66);” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,984,447
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.