• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 29, 2022 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because Coffee did not disclose the claimed copying, and Coffee combined with Heijden did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Initial and Rehearing Decisions, we noted that Patent Owner did not contest Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art at that stage of the proceeding and we found “Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record.” Initial Dec. 13 (citing 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)); Rehearing Dec. 16 (same). Therefore, we adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Initial Dec. 13; Rehearing Dec. 16. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 7. Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary finding by adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “received message 7102 and the header of the response message 7202 are not the same. PO Resp. 25 (citations omitted); Pet. Reply 14. In the Petition, Petitioner argued that “header information” was the same in each message (received and response). Pet. 32 (citations omitted), 36–37. Petitioner relies on Tables 58 and 63, which show “Header.” Id. at 32–33, 37. Petitioner also relies on paragraphs 102 and 118 of Mr. Andrews’s Declaration. Neither the Petition nor Mr. Andrews’s Declaration, however, provide any sufficient basis to find that even a portion of the header or header information is copied from the received message to the response message. Mr. Andrews states his opinion as though it were fact without providing the underlying factual support for his opinion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102, 118; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). In cross-examination, Mr. Andrews provided additional information explaining which portion of the headers he believes are the same, but he still does not provide any explanation as to why he believes the information is copied. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 at 111:3–25. The same is true of Petitioner’s Reply, which reiterates Mr. Andrews’s deposition testimony, but still fails to provide any reason as to why Coffee’s charts or Mr. Andrews’ testimony necessarily means that Coffee copies a portion of the header from the received message to the response message. See Continental Can Co. U.S.A., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”). And, despite Petitioner’s identification of a “Header” listed in Tables 58 and 63, Coffee does not expressly describe the header or part of the header as being copied from the received message to the response message. The Petition and Mr. Andrews also state that “if Coffee did not employ such copying, the response message would not automatically include information extracted from the received message.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). But, Coffee does not expressly describe the header as being “extracted from the received message” or describe automatically including the header in a response message to make the leap argued by Petitioner and Mr. Andrews. Accordingly, on the full record before us, we find that Petitioner has not established that Coffee explicitly or inherently discloses copying the header or header information and we do not credit Mr. Andrews’ testimony, discussed above, because he fails to provide the underlying factual basis for the opinions offered.” slip op. at 43

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

    “proceeding and on the full record before us, we do not find that Coffee’s silence is sufficient to support Petitioner’s argument. See Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 787 Fed. Appx. 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“We do not find any error in the Board changing its understanding of the teachings of [a prior art reference] from the institution decision to the final written decision. ‘The Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if convinced that its inclinations were wrong.’” (quoting Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Coffee does not explain the process by which the IOD of the received message is included in the response message; rather, Coffee just states that the response message “contains the IOD of the message being answered.” See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 56:63–67 (see full text quoted above). In particular, although Coffee attributes certain actions to the operator, the lack of attribution to the operator does not necessitate that the only viable possibility remaining is that Coffee copies the IOD from the received message to the response message. Even if it may be said that Coffee probably (or possibly) copies the IOD, that probability is not sufficient to find that Coffee necessarily copies the IOD. See Continental Can, 948 F.2d at 1269 (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”).7 Additionally, on the full record before us, we determine that Mr. Andrews’s testimony, as with his testimony as to copying of the header and selected response, fails to provide any factual or underlying support for his opinions expressed therein. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–102. In particular, the leap occurs in paragraph 102, where Mr. Andrews takes the fact that some information (at least the IOD) from the received formatted message is included with the response message to opine that this means the information is “copied over.” Id. ¶ 102. But, again, Coffee is silent. And because Mr. Andrews did not provide any underlying factual basis for his opinion, we do not credit his testimony as to copying the IOD. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 48

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

    “generally, including the alleged benefits of such and reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to include field-mapping information in Coffee’s MDT. See id. at 62–70. None of Petitioner’s discussion, however, explains how the combination of Coffee and Heijden remedies the deficiencies that we identified regarding Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee. In particular, Petitioner does not assert or explain how the teachings of Heijden would be applied to Coffee such that Coffee would then copy or fill in the specific information from Coffee’s received message to Coffee’s response message, particularly as pertains to the header, Response, and IOD fields (which Petitioner relied on in the first ground), or any other information field from Coffee. The same is true of Mr. Andrews’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 214–231. Additionally, it appears that Petitioner’s analysis of the combination of Heijden and Coffee maintains the position that Coffee copies information fields. See Pet. 70 (“Given that Coffee’s system already implements field mapping to copy information fields . . . .”). And, Mr. Andrews’s testimony similarly maintains that Coffee copies information fields. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 229 (“Coffee also discloses (at least inherently) field mapping by describing that data is copied from fields in request messages into corresponding fields in response message.”). But, as we explain in detail in the context of Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Coffee copies or fills in information from a received message to a response message. Thus, we do not find and Petitioner does not allege that Ground “1B” fills the gaps identified in Petitioner’s Ground “1A.”10 Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Coffee and Heijden would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–4, 7–9, and 12 unpatentable.” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 6,925,308 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• Content Square SAS v. Medallia Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2022 · IPR2022-00316 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of establishing the claims’ required cancellation or abandonment functionality.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an 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.” Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner

    “A petitioner in an inter partes review may challenge the claims of a patent “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added). “[A]t the institution stage, the petition must identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that [a] reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a” slip op. at 24

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

    “Claim 1, limitation [1b] recites in part: web site user cancellation or abandonment prediction functionality operative to determine, based on a website action of a given user, that the given user intends to cancel a transaction associated with the website-based process or abandon the web site-based process Id. at 10:30–34 (emphases added). Reading the claim in light of the specification, it is clear that a “transaction” is a business transaction and that a “website-based process” is, for example, a business transaction process or” slip op. at 33

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

    “E. Ground 2: Claims 1–19 – Alleged Obviousness over Nickerson Error, and Salle Petitioner explains that “Salle is relied on for the limited purpose of disclosing ‘prediction functionality’ for determining if users are having difficulty completing a transaction and intend to cancel or abandon the transaction.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 36) (alteration in original). Petitioner does not allege nor rely on Salle to teach the “cancel a transaction associated with the website-based process or abandon the website-based process” as recited in each of independent claim 1, 9, and 19. For the same reasons as discussed above relative to claim 1 in view of Nickerson and Error, we are not persuaded that the Petition supports a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 9, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious over Nickerson, Error, and Salle. Petitioner’s challenges of dependent claims 2–8 and 10–18 suffer the same deficiency, and we likewise determine that Petitioner falls short in demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that those dependent claims are unpatentable as obvious over Nickerson, Error, and Salle.” slip op. at 39

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,886,552
• Termax Company v. Illinois Tool Works Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 12, 2022 · IPR2022-00106 · APJ Rae Lynn P Guest · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on the sole design claim because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation by Scroggie or obviousness over Scroggie, Scroggie and Benedetti, or Benedetti and Scroggie.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Scroggie is based entirely on the premise that we cannot consider the appearance of the lower platform. See Pet. 32 (“Factoring out unclaimed features and the functional aspects of the lower platform, a side-by-side comparison of the remaining aspects of the claimed design . . . illustrates the D’826 design is identical in all material respects to Scroggie and is anticipated . . . .”). Indeed, on the record before us, Petitioner does not address the design as a whole, to the extent that it includes the appearance of the lower platform, in order to show that an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would deem the design depicted in Scroggie to have the same overall visual appearance as that claimed in the ’826 patent. Rather, Petitioner asserts that “there are no differences between Scroggie and the claimed design.” Pet. 41. Indeed, on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that the lower platform is significant to the overall appearance of the fastener design, and thus Petitioner’s analysis is not sufficient on this record. Because we disagree with Petitioner’s premise that the lower platform’s appearance is primarily dictated by function, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to this ground.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “platform is not visible “at all times during the fastener’s normal use,” but is “hidden from view.” Pet. 24. Again, the use of the fastener is not limited to use with a seal for a vehicle. Petitioner provides no evidence of manufacturing techniques, sales, advertising, or installation, to support the contention that “[f]rom manufacture, sale and installation, the lower platform is enshrouded by the perimeter seal.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 65). And, although Petitioner relies on Mr. Wheelock’s testimony, that testimony is unsupported on the record before us. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 65 (failing to identify any support for his opinion). Accordingly, we give Mr. Wheelock’s testimony on this point little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Additionally, as noted above, we are not persuaded that a seal is a necessary component for a general fastener, and, thus, we are not persuaded that fasteners are not manufactured or sold without seals attached. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that such a position is not supported by case law.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a person having at least a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and at least three years of experience in push-in fastener engineering, and specifically sealing fasteners, as used in the assembly of vehicle trims.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 37). Patent Owner argues that the Petitioner’s definition leaves out a key detail “that the person actually has to be a ‘designer’” and “incorrectly alleges that the person at issue need only be someone with ‘experience’ with push-in fastener ‘engineering,’ without any experience whatsoever in designing them.” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. However, Patent Owner also asserts that an ordinary designer is “[a] person having an engineering degree and at least three years of experience in designing fasteners with designs similar to the ‘D826 patent, or comparable qualifications acquired through work experience.” Id. at 12 (bold emphasis added). Because Patent Owner’s definition includes qualifications acquired through “work experience” broadly, we think the parties’ definitions are quite close. In particular, neither definition strictly requires three years of design experience in fasteners; rather, each includes comparable qualifications through other work experiences in fastener technology. Accordingly, the result is not impacted based on whether we rely on Petitioner’s definition or Patent Owner’s definition of the skilled artisan. Further, based on the limited record before us, we note that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art designs of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “In construing the design claim, if the particular appearance of a design aspect is dictated by its function, the functional element’s appearance cannot significantly contribute to an ornamental design because it would necessarily have the same appearance in any other device where it serves the same function. Sport Dimension, 820 F.3d at 1321 (“[T]he fact finder should not focus on the particular designs of these elements when determining infringement, but rather focus on what these elements contribute to the design’s overall ornamentation.”). Accordingly, if a feature is shown in the prior art as a whole having a variety of appearances and yet serves the same function, the appearance is likely not critical to its function, or that feature would have looked identical in each device’s design. See Best Lock, 94 F.3d at 1566 (“A design is not dictated solely by its function when alternative designs for the article of manufacture are available.”); L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123 (“When there are several ways to achieve the function of an article of manufacture, the design of the article is more likely to serve a primarily ornamental purpose.”). Thus, to determine what visual aspects of a design are primarily functional, any analysis must consider how that feature appears throughout the prior art and whether and what aspects of that feature appear consistently.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
• Princeton Carbon Works Inc. v. Metron IP LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00082 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner asserts that no terms require express construction at this stage, and Patent Owner does not argue otherwise. Pet. 24; see generally Prelim. Resp. We agree. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe controversy.”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner fails to explain how the peaks at spokes 14 which are flat, show an undulating curve configuration or a convex peak. Figure 9B appears to show a curve from the trough to the peak, followed by a flat line at the peak, and then a curve from the peak to the trough. Without further explanation it is not clear how this configuration is an undulating curve or a convex peak. Further, the cited figures do not establish sufficiently that the spoke mounts have an undulating curve configuration or a convex peak.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner’s reasoning that the air forces at Carlson’s rim are the same as those at Zibkoff’s spoke is that air flows across the spoke and air flows across the rim, and they both have leading and trailing edges. Pet. 46–48. Petitioner supports its reasoning by citing to its expert and to the ’188 patent. Id. at 46–50; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 98–102. Petitioner’s declarant repeats the same reasoning as Petitioner, which we determine to be conclusory. This analysis fails to address the differences in air flow experienced at the rim versus the spoke, for example due to the fact that the rim is spaced further away from the hub or differences based on rotation or the differences based on the shape and positioning of the leading and trailing edges. See Prelim. Resp. 47; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 69–70, 73. Further, it is not clear from Petitioner’s analysis which edge of a rim Petitioner is considering to be the leading edge and which edge is the trailing edge. Pet. 47–48. Petitioner’s identification involves a box surrounding a section of rim including both the inner rim and the outer rim and an arrow pointing to the box. Id. For Carlson, the Petition includes two figures of Petitioner’s own creation, each with a box surrounding the same section of rim, with arrows to indicate airflow and an arrow pointing to the box with the words “leading edge” or “trailing edge.” Id. It is not clear whether Petitioner’s analysis is for one section of the rim, or two different sections. If the analysis is for one section, the analysis fails to discuss the bicycle tire which is attached to the rim and what affect that has on the air flow when compared to the leading and trailing edges of Zibkoff’s spokes, which have analysis fails to discuss the spokes and hub in-between the two sections and what affect they have on the air flow or why the mostly empty space would be similar to the spoke body in Zibkoff. Though we agree that there maybe be similarities in the air forces at” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,611,188
• Princeton Carbon Works Inc. v. Metron IP LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00078 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over Carlson, Herting, or their combinations with Zibkoff.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have” slip op. at 8

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

    “In inter partes review, we construe claims using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Petitioner asserts that no terms require express construction at this stage, and Patent Owner does not argue otherwise. Pet. 20–21; see generally Prelim. Resp. We agree. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelOther

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a master’s degree or PhD in mechanical or aerospace engineering or a related field, or would have equivalent work experience in the field of aerodynamics.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 21). Patent Owner argues for a slightly different level of skill and that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill excludes the inventor of the ’800 patent: A person of ordinary skill in the art in early 2011 would have at least (1) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or an equivalent degree in the aerodynamics or fluid dynamics fields plus one or more years of experience in the design work related to aerodynamics or fluid dynamics or bicycle component design relating to aerodynamics; (2) a Master’s or Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering or in the fields of aerodynamics or fluid dynamics plus a strong understanding of mechanical design principles; or (3) the equivalent work experience in the fields of aerodynamics or fluid dynamics or bicycle component design relating to aerodynamics. See Ex. 2011, ¶35; id. at 132-33. . . . Notably, Princeton’s expert Dr. Hanson’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill (Ex. 1002, ¶ 21) would appear to exclude Dimitrios Katsanis, the inventor of the ‘800 Patent, from being considered a person of ordinary skill in the art because Mr. Katsanis only possessed a bachelor’s degree in engineering at the time of the ‘800 Patent invention even though he was a bicycle wheel and component designer for years. There should be no doubt that Mr. Katsanis was at least a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Ex. 2011, ¶¶37-38; id. at 133. At this stage of the proceeding, and on this record, we determine it is unnecessary to resolve any differences in the parties’ definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as any distinction does not impact our Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner fails to explain how the peaks at spokes 14, which are flat, show a radial distance that continuously varies as asserted by Petitioner in the annotated figure. Further, by failing to address the flat tops of the peaks, Petitioner fails to explain how Figure 9B shows a radial distance that continuously varies between the adjacent troughs as also required by the claim.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,610,800
• Brunswick Corporation v. Volvo Penta Of The Americas, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2022 · IPR2020-01512 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 11–13, 15, 17, and 18 as anticipated by Kiekhaefer, and claims 4 and 7 as obvious over Kiekhaefer and Stechauner.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “3. The Claims Are Limited to “Stern Drives” Patent Owner argues that independent claims 1, 8, and 18 are limited” slip op. at 10

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

    “102(a) Kiekhaefer 15, 17, 18 18” slip op. at 118

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “presumption of nexus as to the Forward Drive. As noted by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 16 n.4), the Federal Circuit has made clear that the coextensiveness requirement is separate from the requirement that the product or process embodies the claims. See Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1377 (“We reject [the patent owner’s] attempt to reduce the coextensiveness requirement to an inquiry into whether the patent claims broadly cover the product that is the subject of the evidence of secondary considerations.”). Here, Patent Owner concludes that the “Forward Drive is a commercial embodiment of the ’692 Patent and coextensive with the claims” and cites to one paragraph of one of Dr. Winkel’s Declarations. PO Resp. 52 (citing 3d Winkel Decl. ¶ 51). Even assuming that this reliance on Dr. Winkel’s Declaration is not improper incorporation by reference (Pet. Reply 16 n.4 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)), Dr. Winkel (via his Appendix C) addresses why the Forward Drive embodies the claims, but does not even mention, let alone provide testimony supporting Patent Owner’s conclusion regarding, the separate coextensiveness requirement. See 3d Winkel Decl. ¶ 51.” slip op. at 66

  Patent outcomesUS 9,630,692 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,630,692
• Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01302 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 were not determined unpatentable because the asserted Larson and Larson–Butler grounds did not teach sampling.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither party contends that the differences in proposals affect the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art from the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’474 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include the specifics from option (b) of Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Because the parties agree that the claims remaining in the trial require “sampling” and also agree that the prior art asserted in this case does not teach “sampling” (as discussed further below), we need not construe these terms expressly to resolve the controversy before us. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. sampling Although claim 1 does not recite “sampling” expressly, the post- institution briefs make clear that the parties agree that claim 1 and its dependent claims require sampling. In particular, Patent Owner contends, (1) “the ’474 patent pertains to a technique called sampling, which involves the use of a ‘switch’” (PO Resp. 2); (2) “all of the challenged claims are directed to a sampling system and, in particular, an energy sampling system (also known as an energy transfer system)” (id.); and (3) “[t]he challenged claims only cover energy sampling and the use of switches” (id. at 20). In its Reply, although Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claims as limited to energy sampling (i.e., energy transfer systems) (Pet. Reply 3–7), Petitioner contends that based on its “subsequent analysis of [Patent Owner’s] foundational ’551 patent—one of the multiple patents which the ’474 patent incorporates by reference—[Petitioner] now agrees with [Patent Owner] that the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling.” Pet. Reply 2. Thus, at a minimum, the parties agree that the claims at issue in this proceeding require sampling.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,539,474 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,539,474
• SAP SE v. Teradata US Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00861 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 and all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Based on the present record, we do not find Patent Owner’s proposed construction supported by the intrinsic evidence. The ordinary meaning of “manage the storage of data in the volatile storage” does not require limiting the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage, and Patent Owner does not argue to the contrary. Turning to the language of the other claims, we note that claim 5, which depends from claim 1, specifically includes additional language stating that the data is stored “only in one of two portions of the volatile storage,” but claim 1 does not include such language. The use of this additional limitation in dependent claim 5 suggests that the inventors did not intend it to be included within claim 1’s broader language reciting “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage.” See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim”). Turning to the ’923 patent specification, the portions of the specification Patent Owner relies on appear to discuss a preferred embodiment of the invention, rather than limiting the invention itself. The portions of columns 14 and 15 upon which Patent Owner relies discuss Figure 3 which, the specification explains, “depicts a volatile storage 300 that uses a persistent temperature-based storage management technique as well as a conventional storage management technique in accordance with one embodiment.” Ex. 1001, 14:48–51 (emphasis added); see id. at 5:5–8 (also describing Figure 3 as being “in accordance with one embodiment” of the invention). Interpreting claim 1 to require maintaining only a single copy of a data portion in either the first portion or second portion, where that language does not exist in claim 1, would be tantamount to reading a limitation from a preferred embodiment into the claims, which would be improper. See Philips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”). Patent Owner does not identify any portions of the specification suggesting that limiting the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage is a necessary part of the invention, or that the inventors intended to expressly or impliedly define “manage the storage of data in the volatile storage” to include this requirement. Consequently, at this stage of the proceeding, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction requiring that “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage” requires “coordinating placement of data into and out of the volatile storage so as to limit the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage.” The parties may further address the meaning of this claim phrase during the trial, if appropriate.” slip op. at 10

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

    “3. Other Terms We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science and two years of industry experience or research working 2 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. with database and related storage management technologies,” and that “[a]dditional education, such as an M.S. in computer science, could substitute for the industry experience as it typically involves at least two years of additional study focused exclusively on computer science, as well as a thesis or project spanning several terms to implement a substantial project.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). According to Petitioner, the person of ordinary skill would have “understood the advantages of partitioning a volatile memory into multiple different sections (e.g., buffer pools) and applying multiple different storage management (e.g., cache replacement) policies to those different sections, and known how to implement such designs.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 14. For purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’923 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 13

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

    “At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Lee discloses this claim element. Paragraph 17 of Lee discloses the use of a temperature-based storage management technique and a non-temperature-based storage management technique (the LRU replacement policy), and that both “may be used to manage a cache.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 17. Based on the present record, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Lee’s disclosure of using these techniques “to manage a cache” involves “manag[ing] the storage of data in” the cache, because both techniques operate in order to control what data is stored in the cache. We do not find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive because it is based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “manag[ing] the storage of data in the volatile storage” to require “limit[ing] the number of copies of the data in the volatile storage,” which we do not adopt. See § II.A.2, supra. Consequently, we determine that, on the record before us, Petitioner’s cited evidence sufficiently supports its contentions regarding this limitation.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,851,923
• Autostore System Inc. v. Ocado Innovation LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00798 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “storage locations, but that this grid is defined by a structural framework. Ex. 1001, 14:5–6. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that the language of claims 1 and 23 strongly suggests that the structural framework defines the grid of storage locations, and not merely that the structural framework provides open areas within which storage containers could be arranged in a grid-like pattern.” slip op. at 9

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

    “After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, for the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “As discussed in Section II.A.2 above, we construe “a structural framework defining a grid of storage locations,” as recited in claims 1 and 23, to require that a “structural framework” define the grid of storage locations, as opposed to these locations being defined merely by the orientation or location of stacked containers. Petitioner identifies no Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that independent claims 1 and 23 are anticipated by Lert.” slip op. at 15

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

    “would have been obvious over Lert. Pet. 21–53. Petitioner’s obviousness arguments with respect to these claims do not resolve the issues noted above with respect to independent claims 1, 13, and 23. In particular, Petitioner provides no persuasive argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Lert to have a structural framework that defines the storage locations or to have delivery containers stored within storage containers and delivered to picking workstations. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8, 13–20, and 23 would have been obvious over the disclosures of Lert.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,796,080
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Sep 3, 2021 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing and instituted IPR on all petition grounds for claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

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

    “preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 44

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

    “The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.6 Petitioner 6 As noted above, Petitioner raises a second claim construction issue in its Rehearing Request. See Req. Reh’g 12–15 (asserting that the claims require only one instance of copying information from a formatted message to a response message based on which formatted message was received). Petitioner did not raise this issue in the Petition, Patent Owner has not had an contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 2–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 17

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

    “VI. ANALYSIS Legal Standards – Anticipation “[A] claim is anticipated ‘if each and every limitation is found expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Anticipation is a question of fact, In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334–35 (Fed. Cir. 2009), assessed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, see Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“the dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)).” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308

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.