• Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2026 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–6, 11, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Doo and Amira; claims 12–19 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted tissue properties were not shown in Amira.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Federal Circuit. The court issued its decision in Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp., No. 2024-1794, 2026 WL 587294 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 3, 2026) (“Medivis”) (Paper 40),1 affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, and remanding our Final Written Decision (Paper 35) for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed our “determination of no motivation to combine Doo and Amira” and remanded for further proceedings to evaluate whether claims 1–6 and 11–20 (“the Remanded Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,004,271 B2 (“the ’271 patent,” Ex. 1001) are unpatentable in view of Petitioner’s obviousness challenge over Doo and Amira. Medivis, slip op. at 9–10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We issue this Final Written Decision on Remand pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 144, 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 in an inter partes review involving Medivis, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and Novarad Corp. (“Patent Owner”). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the entirety of the record in light of the Federal Circuit’s directives in Medivis, we hold that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–6, 11, and 20 are unpatentable; however, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 12–19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, except that we excise part of Petitioner’s definition to produce the following modified version: 4 Throughout this decision, we eliminate the parties’ italicization of reference names from quotations without noting “emphasis omitted.” 5 Doo, WO 2015/164402 A1, published October 29, 2015 (Ex. 1008). 6 Excerpt of Amira 5 User’s Guide, title through Chapter 2 (Visual Imaging 2009) (Ex. 1005). engineering, or a related field with several years of experience in the design, development, and study of augmented reality devices and . . . familiarity with conventional medical imaging data and visualization of data for medical procedures . . . . Our edit removes the alternative of “working with a team including someone with such familiarity” because one’s role in a team may be tangential to their personal experience with medical imaging. Regardless, had we adopted Petitioner’s original definition, our decision would not have changed.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the term “3D slices” has no apparent connection to the phrase “direct volume rendering.” Patent Owner’s argument appears to be that DVR “requires an image of the entire anatomical volume that is neither feature-specific nor segmented, [which] would seemingly require that all inner layers be displayed.” Reply 4; see Sur-reply 6–10 (not disputing Petitioner’s characterization). But, as Petitioner notes, the specification directly undermines this by teaching “display [of] a slice of the 3D data instead of a volume of the 3D data.” See Reply 4 n.2 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:34–35). In other words, to the extent DVR would depict an image of the entire anatomical volume, displaying 3D slices “instead of a volume of the 3D data” implies the opposite of DVR. Even if “3D slices” somehow implied DVR, Patent Owner’s position is still untenable. Claim 1 does not recite “3D slices.” Instead, claim 1 recites “3D data” and “inner layers.” Ex. 1001, 18:54–65. Patent Owner fails to clarify the relationship between “slices,” “3D data,” and “layers,” and its expert even admits that slices and layers are two different things. See PO Resp. 13; Ex. 1022, 32:7–16 (agreeing that the words “slice” and “layer” are not “synonyms”), cited in Reply 4. We also agree with Petitioner that dependent claim 3 distinguishes slices and layers by reciting “slices of the projected inner layer.” Reply 4 (quoting Ex. 1001, 19:3–10). Thus, even if 3D slices somehow implied DVR, the language of claim 1 does not support limiting the claim this way.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The determination of whether a document was publicly accessible “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For instance, courts routinely rely on the Wayback Machine to determine when a reference was first made available to the public. Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“District courts have taken judicial notice of the contents of webpages available through the Wayback Machine ‘as facts that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’”). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Medivis cannot rely on additional prior art”—Exhibits 1023 and 1024—“that was submitted after its Petition to carry its burden without leave from the Board.” Sur-reply 4. As Patent Owner did not file a motion to exclude these exhibits, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to disregard them. We also find Petitioner’s Reply argument proper because it directly responds to Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner did not prove the public accessibility of Amira. See Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F.3d, 919, 925 on issues previously raised.”). Petitioner’s Reply argument appropriately elaborates on the Petition’s contention that Amira was publicly accessible. Patent Owner also does not dispute the substance of Petitioner’s evidence. For example, Patent Owner does not address the substance of Mr. Frank-White’s declaration. We find that this evidence, including Mr. Frank- White’s declaration testimony, persuasively supports the public availability of Amira as of the date shown in the Wayback Machine URL. See Ex. 1024.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,004,271 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,004,271
• Lenovo (United States), Inc. v. University Of RochesterSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01225 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–7 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 8–12 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish asynchronous operation between domains.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “specification is the ‘single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,’ . . . and ‘is, thus, the primary basis for construing the claims.’” Trs. of Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Although Patent Owner contends that the Specification disparages systems that impose significant restrictions on the possible choices of frequencies (PO Resp. 21), we find availing Petitioner’s contention that “[s]upport for Patent Owner’s construction is absent from the specification.” Pet. Reply 10. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s claim construction “appears to be based on a single paragraph of the ’443 patent referring to preexisting ‘synchronization schemes [that] restrict the phase relationship and relative frequencies of the clocks.” Id. That is, the only reference by Patent Owner to the Specification is that the Specification states that “Some synchronization schemes restrict the . . . relative frequencies of the clocks, thereby eliminating the need for hardware arbitration [27]. Unfortunately, these schemes impose significant restrictions on the possible choices of frequences.” PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:32–36). We agree with Petitioner that such disclosure in the Specification “does not describe how these synchronization schemes ‘restrict the phase relationship and relative frequencies’ with any specificity.’” Pet. the Specification that some schemes impose restrictions on the possible choices of frequency is not a disparagement of any system that has limited choices of frequency or would preclude the claims from covering such prior art techniques. Instead, as Petitioner points out, the Specification of the ’443 patent states “[t]he preferred embodiment uses four domains […] so that domains may vary somewhat in size and still be covered by a single clock.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:57–59). As Dr. Baker testified in support of Petitioner’s contention, “the preferred embodiment of the ’443 patent relies on a single external master clock that distributes a signal to the local PLL of each domain.” See Ex. 1032 ¶ 9. Thus, although Patent Owner contends that clock signals generated based on a master clock cannot be interpreted to be generated independently of the clock signals generated for others of the plurality of domains (PO Resp. 49), we agree with Petitioner that such claim construction would “exclude[] the preferred embodiment of the ’443 patent,” which is disfavored. Pet. Reply 11. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that “changeable independently” of the other domains does not require that the separate clocks in the plurality of domains be globally-asynchronous.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “As both parties recognize, (PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 12), “[actual] [r]eduction to practice in the United States requires that the invention be embodied in tangible form.” Scott v. Koyama, 281 F.3d 1243, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In particular, actual reduction to practice requires a showing of the invention in a physical or tangible form that shows every element. not sufficient. See Kimberly-Clark v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, Patent Owner does not provide any evidence showing every element of the claims in physical or tangible form, as required, but rather contends that the Specification refers to the Paper, wherein the Paper stated that simulation using a software, SimpleScalar, was performed. PO Resp. 16. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that the SimpleScalar simulation was not an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Pet. Reply 12. As Petitioner points out, claim 1, for example, is directed to a “microprocessor,” wherein “Patent Owner has presented no evidence and has not alleged that any physical microprocessor was ever produced or operated.” Id. at 13; see PO Resp. 15–17. And as Petitioner points out, “Patent Owner has produced no evidence of any physical prototype of the claimed microprocessor that could have validated the simulation.” Pet. Reply 13–14. We agree with Petitioner that, at most, such simulation “demonstrated feasibility for prototyping of a microprocessor,” but not a tangible form of the microprocessor itself as required for an actual reduction to practice. Id. at 14; see also Standard Mfg. Co. v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 1, 67 (1991) (“The feasibility of the optical alignment system may have been proven by the optical mock-up, but the optical mock-up was not a reduction to practice of the proposed MHU–145/M trailer.”).” slip op. at 36

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

    “Here, we find that Petitioner has not met its burden to prove that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “the functional units of Georgiou operate asynchronously since they have different clocks.” Pet. 74 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 211–219). Specifically, although Petitioner relies on Georgiou for teaching different clocks, Petitioner’s conclusory statement that such application would operate asynchronously requires gapfilling. Id. As Patent Owner points out, Georgiou discloses a clocking architecture in which “all domain clocks are derived from a shared master clock through predetermined rational dividers.” PO Resp. 49. Petitioner concedes during the oral hearing that, in systems such as Georgiou, each domain clock is set a fraction of a master clock, and thus, the various domain clocks are “possibly” synchronous with each other. Tr. 59:4–14 (JUDGE DANG: . . . would being fractions of the master, wouldn’t they be synchronized with each other? MR UHR: They may be, . . . the answer is possibly.”) Thus, we find Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have recognized that the functional units of Georgiou operate “asynchronously” lacks sufficient support in the record. We find the testimony of Dr. Baker insufficient to support Petitioner’s position. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 213, 215–219. In his declaration, Dr. Baker testified that he “provided several references . . . that explain operating domains asynchronous to one another while the domains operate synchronously.” Id. ¶¶ 215–219. However, although such references explain “globally asynchronous, local synchronous (GALS) systems” (id. ¶ 216), Dr. Baker does not explain why a POSITA “would have known that a functional unit of Georgiou also operates asynchronous with respect to at different frequencies.” Id. ¶ 217. Without evidentiary support, we are left with speculation and impermissible hindsight. See in Re Wagner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We decline to engage in speculation. See, e.g., In re Vaidyanathan, 381 F. App’x 985, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Wallen, 565 F. App’x 867, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2014), both citing In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Circ. 2001) ([T]he Board must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings.”). In sum, based on our review of the record, we find Petitioner’s showing is insufficient. Thus, based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Georgiou teaches “operating the microprocessor such that each domain operates synchronously, while the domains operate asynchronously relative to one another,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 28

  • BurdenMixed

    “of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “the functional units of Georgiou operate asynchronously since they have different clocks.” Pet. 74 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 211–219). Specifically, although Petitioner relies on Georgiou for teaching different clocks, Petitioner’s conclusory statement that such application would operate asynchronously requires gapfilling. Id. As Patent Owner points out, Georgiou discloses a clocking architecture in which “all domain clocks are derived from a shared master clock through predetermined rational dividers.” PO Resp. 49. Petitioner concedes during the oral hearing that, in systems such as Georgiou, each domain clock is set a fraction of a master clock, and thus, the various domain clocks are “possibly” synchronous with each other. Tr. 59:4–14 (JUDGE DANG: . . . would being fractions of the master, wouldn’t they be synchronized with each other? MR UHR: They may be, . . . the answer is possibly.”) Thus, we find Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have recognized that the functional units of Georgiou operate “asynchronously” lacks sufficient support in the record. We find the testimony of Dr. Baker insufficient to support Petitioner’s position. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 213, 215–219. In his declaration, Dr. Baker testified that he “provided several references . . . that explain operating domains asynchronous to one another while the domains operate synchronously.” Id. ¶¶ 215–219. However, although such references explain “globally asynchronous, local synchronous (GALS) systems” (id. ¶ 216), Dr. Baker does not explain why a POSITA “would have known that a functional unit of Georgiou also operates asynchronous with respect to at different frequencies.” Id. ¶ 217. Without evidentiary support, we are left with speculation and impermissible hindsight. See in Re Wagner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We decline to engage in speculation. See, e.g., In re Vaidyanathan, 381 F. App’x 985, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Wallen, 565 F. App’x 867, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2014), both citing In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Circ. 2001) ([T]he Board must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings.”). In sum, based on our review of the record, we find Petitioner’s showing is insufficient. Thus, based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Georgiou teaches “operating the microprocessor such that each domain operates synchronously, while the domains operate asynchronously relative to one another,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,089,443 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,089,443
• Bizlink Technology, Inc. v. Anderson Power Products, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00687 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 7–12 are unpatentable; claim 4 is not shown unpatentable because Winkler does not establish that its insulating barriers press against each other when partially disconnected.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s first argument that a level of ordinary skill in the art that encompasses an individual having experience with electrical circuits but not electrical connectors is not consistent with the technology and descriptions in the ’017 patent. See PO Resp. 7. The field of the invention of the ’017 patent is “electrical connectors, and more particularly, . . . an electrical connector that suppresses arcing if connected or disconnected while current is flowing.” Ex. 1001, 1:7–9. Consistent therewith, the challenged claims are directed to “[a]n electrical connector pair” and recite structural features of the electrical connector pair. Id. at 4:20–56, 5:1–20.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find that the intrinsic evidence supports maintaining our construction in the Institution Decision that “insulating” means “electrically insulating.” See Dec. 11–12. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the insulating barriers would be unable to be configured to “block[] substantially all through-air arcing paths between the first and second electrical contacts,” as claimed, unless they were electrically insulating. See Ex. 1001, 4:36–44. Moreover, as Patent Owner avers, our interpretation of “insulating” as it applies to the first and second insulating barriers should be the same as for the first and second housings. See Digital Biometrics, 149 F.3d at 1345 (“whatever interpretation we assign [to a word used in a claim] should encompass both uses because the same word appearing in the same claim should be interpreted consistently” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 15

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

    “Ex. 2001 ¶ 102. Accordingly, we find Dr. Eldering’s testimony persuasive as to this issue and determine that the diagram shows what an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably inferred Winkler to disclose when the connectors are partially disconnected. Compare Ex. 1004, Fig. 2, with Pet. 33; see also Ex. 1004, 3:14–27 (discussing the process by which the connectors are engaged with each other).” slip op. at 44

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

    “Id. at 3:27–37 (emphasis added). These wall portions 58 are located between the distal ends of the terminals and where Petitioner proposes to add a printed circuit board or wiring board to Winkler. See id. at Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46 (diagrams showing Winkler as modified to have a printed circuit board or wiring board). As such, movement of Winkler’s terminals appears to be mostly limited to within their respective receiving pockets. Given the above teachings, we fail to see how Petitioner’s proposed modification would have meaningfully interfered with the degree of freedom of movement required by Winkler’s terminals. Notably, Mr. Locati’s testimony regarding this issue is conclusory. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 120. Because movement of Winkler’s terminals occurs primarily in the receiving pockets, we also do not discern how the solder joint of Petitioner’s proposed modification would experience undue stress or risk breaking due to that movement. See Ex. 1004, 1:47–55, 3:14–37, Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46. This is particularly true in view of Winkler’s teaching that each cylindrical end portion may be soldered to a cable. See id. at 2:6–10; see also Pet. 43 (arguing that Winkler teaches soldering to a cable but not specifically to a printed circuit or wiring board). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Winkler and Handbook.” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 8,808,017 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,808,017
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Maxell LtdSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00735 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 and 9–13 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because WinTV was not established as a prior-art printed publication.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The Decision on Institution adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8–9. We find Patent Owner’s stated level to be less precise than that proposed by Petitioner in that the modifier “at least” used by Patent Owner imposes no upper bound on the amount of experience possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, Patent Owner states: “The difference between the Board’s definition and Patent Owner’s does not change the arguments set forth herein.” PO Resp. 5. Thus, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.10 C.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the district court’s construction is better than Petitioner’s proposed construction, because for reasons indicated by Patent Owner, which are not disputed by Petitioner, settings in the computer, e.g., dedicated folders for each user, are the user profiles, rather than simply data alone of any kind. Further, when asked about the appropriateness of the district court’s construction, counsel for Petitioner expressed that Petitioner has no objection to the Board’s adopting the district court’s construction for “user profile”: JUDGE LEE: So, you’d be fine with just going with the District Court’s construction? MR. HEINTZ: Yes, Your Honor. Tr. 15:22–24. For the foregoing reasons, we adopt the district court’s construction for “user profile,” i.e., “a collection of settings and information associated with a user.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “2. “the first group of video information being configured to allow a user to edit” Petitioner asserts: “This limitation should be construed for the purposes of this proceeding as meaning at least that a user can modify which video information is a part of the first group of video information.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner neither proposed its own construction nor disagreed with Petitioner’s proposed construction. We adopt the meaning as proposed by Petitioner. D.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We do not reach a resolution on the issue of relative cost between a wired LAN versus a wireless LAN, because Petitioner’s assertion that wireless LANs “were often cheaper and easier to install” is nebulous by use of the imprecise word “often.” “Often” cheaper permits “often” not cheaper. Much depends on how many access points would exist in the wired LAN. Petitioner does not discuss that consideration in the context of Horn. Also, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s other stated reasons for implementing Horn’s LAN as a wireless LAN: (1) that a wireless LAN can be more convenient to users, and (2) Baumgartner provides adequate motivation by disclosing transmission of video from server 36 via communications network 34 such as the Internet over link 48 implemented wirelessly to user computer equipment 22 such as a personal computer. Pet. 29–32. We are persuaded that a wireless LAN provides more user convenience by enabling the user equipment accessing the external network to be flexibly located within the range of the LAN without need to have wires installed to run to those locations. That is true whether there is only one user equipment or there are multiple user equipment, one per user. In the case of only one user equipment, the user can access the external network from a wide range of locations and change that location flexibly. In the case of multiple user equipment, one per user, each user can access the external network from his or her own preferred location, and also change that preference at any time without regard to whether wires have been installed to the preferred location.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,017,815 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,017,815
• Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00140 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7–10, 12–16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable over the stated grounds; claims 4–6 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed multi-coil alignment lacked prior-art support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had . . . a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, microelectronics, or equivalent and . . . two to three years of industry or research experience in the field of wireless energy transfer,” and that “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–44). Patent Owner does not contest this. See PO Resp. Petitioner’s proposed articulation is supported by testimonial evidence and appears to be consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’654 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:15–28. We adopt it for this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the evidence does not suggest (and Patent Owner does not explicitly argue) that the terms “transmitting antenna” and “receiving” antenna depart from the ordinary and customary meanings of those terms. Pet. 1–2. However, for the reasons discussed below, the outcome of our decision would be the same whether we adopted Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Thus, we need not adopt either party’s proposed construction for this decision. 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 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “spaced configuration are not confined to ferrite cores 32 and 3, and that at least a component of the flux lines will escape the cores. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 48–52; Ex. 1038 ¶ 54 Fig. 2. Indeed, the evidence suggests (and Dr. Horenstein acknowledges in his first declaration) that at least a component of flux will escape the core of even a traditional transformer. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 45–47; Ex. 1044, 6; Ex. 2001 ¶ 27. In his second declaration, Dr. Horenstein provides contrary testimony that in Odachi’s open configuration during alignment, cores 32 and 3 “act to confine or guide the magnetic flux lines, rather than radiate them into free space,” and “the flux lines would [not] leave the gap area and enter into the space distal to the magnetic circuit.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. But in view of Dr. Horenstein’s contrary position in his first declaration, and the lack of supporting evidence in his second, we do not find it credible. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (2022) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254 (Fed. Cir. 2022).” slip op. at 24

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

    “(4) Analysis We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that during the alignment process in Odachi corresponding to claim 13, there is a “spaced distance between the primary inductive coupler [230] and the secondary inductive receptacle 2” which is “reduced gradually and electromagnetic induction occurs between the coupler to the receptacle when the former coupler comes close to the latter receptacle.” Ex. 1005, 6:1–6. Thus, prior to any contact or precise alignment between the two cores, “an electromotive force is induced in the secondary coil 4 and this induced force is increased with the decrease in the spaced distance.” Id. at 6:6–8. At least in that spaced configuration, the evidence of record suggests that primary coil 31 produces a near-field component of flux into free space (the air space between the coils where there is no intervening core material) that is intercepted by secondary coil 4 to effect resonant inductive coupling, and that secondary coil 4 intercepts and receives the near-field component of flux in free space that is generated by primary coil 31 to effect resonant inductive coupling. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 48–52, 55. Thus, we find that Odachi discloses a “transmitting antenna” (coil 31) and a “receiving antenna” (coil 4) under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. We would reach the same finding under Petitioner’s proposed broader construction because the evidence suggests that Odachi’s coils 31 and 4 would have been considered “antennas” under the parties’ uncontested definition of that term, which is “a device that radiates and/or receives radio waves.” See id. ¶¶ 43–47, 53–54; Ex. 1032 ¶ 15 (Dr. Allen agreeing with this definition of “antenna”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 25 (Dr. Horenstein agreeing with this definition of “antenna”)). In addition, Petitioner persuasively shows that the free space between Odachi’s coils in the spaced configuration includes the “near-field region,” which includes the induction field around primary coil 31. See Ex. 2006, 498; Ex. 1045, 5:4–7; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 53–54). Dr. Horenstein’s testimony does not contradict this. Although he points out that there are separate terms for inductive, near, and far fields, he also acknowledges that “[t]he region of space closer to the antenna than the far field is the near-field region.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 37 (citing Ex. 2006, 275).8” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,466,654 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,466,654
• Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00045 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable over Jones and/or Doo; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable because the obviousness grounds lacked adequate motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “2. “augmentation tag” Petitioner proposes the following construction for “augmentation tag”” slip op. at 21

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner persuades us that Jones discloses limitation” slip op. at 31

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

    “reasoning why the POSITA would be motivated to combine, ‘what was known in the art at the relevant time,’ whatever that may be.” PO Resp. 42. We agree. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). “Obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Rather, “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the” slip op. at 53

  Patent outcomesUS 10,945,807 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,945,807
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 19, 2023 · IPR2021-01576 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 13–18 are not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations fail to teach or suggest multiple LED packages connected in series.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–42). Patent Owner argues that its definition is superior because Petitioner’s “and/or” qualifier “might be read as considering a person who has ‘related circuit design’ experience but no experience with ‘LED devices’ to be a POSITA.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner further views Petitioner’s “or a related field” phrasing as potentially including a person who has no experience with LED devices. Id. We agree with Patent Owner on both points. We agree with Patent Owner that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’979 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill but note that had we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill, we would not have reached a different outcome here.” slip op. at 6

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

    “specification support its construction of “formed or mounted to” as encompassing indirect attachment to the substrate. Neither the plain claim language nor the specification requires the phosphor coating to be directly attached to the substrate. Limitation 1(c) recites, wherein the LED chips comprise a phosphor coating to produce a change in a color or a quality of light emitted from the LED chips, wherein the LED chips, the power connection leads, and the phosphor coating are formed or mounted to a flexible substrate that is sufficiently flexible to be formed into a cylindrical shape[.] Ex. 1001, 22:7–12 (emphasis added). The claim is inartfully written, as it requires the LEDs to comprise a phosphor coating but then separately recites that the LED chips and the phosphor coating are formed or mounted to the substrate. But Petitioner correctly explains that the plain meaning requires that “the LED chips comprise a phosphor coating” and that “the [same] phosphor coating” (included in the LED chips) is “formed or mounted to a flexible substrate.” Reply 2. In other words, the use of the term “the” before “phosphor coating” indicates reliance on the antecedent basis of “LED chips comprise a phosphor coating,” and thus the same coating of the LED chips is formed or mounted to the substrate. Logically, by including a phosphor coating with the LED chips, which are formed or mounted to the substrate, the coating of these chips is also indirectly formed or mounted to the substrate. Conversely, it would be illogical to conclude that the claim recites two phosphor coatings, one attached to the LED chips and another attached directly to the substrate, because the structure of the claim refers to a single phosphor coating of the LED chips. Even Patent Owner concedes that the claim encompasses the phosphor coating indirectly being mounted or attached to the substrate (in addition to being directly attached). PO Resp. 11 (“The ordinary English reading of the claim language does not encompass the phosphor coating only being indirectly attached to the substrate, instead, the language indicates that the coating is directly applied to the substrate.” (emphasis changed)), 13 (“the phosphor coating . . . is not merely attached to the substrate indirectly”).” slip op. at 10

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

    “After considering Patent Owner’s arguments, which we address below, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Wojnarowski and Martin discloses this limitation and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references’ teachings in the manner asserted by Petitioner. Briefly, we summarize our findings, and then we address the parties’ arguments in more detail. First, we agree with Petitioner, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that Wojnarowski’s AC input voltage would have been converted to DC voltage in light of the bridge rectifier and capacitor disclosed by Wojnarowski. Pet. 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119– 20 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, 7:59–62, Fig. 24); PO Resp. 35–36 (acknowledging Wojnarowski discloses converting an AC input to a DC voltage). Second, we further agree with Petitioner, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that excessive current due to too few LEDs would have harmed Wojnarowski’s LEDs, and too small a current due to too many LEDs would be insufficient to power Wojnarowski’s LEDs. Pet. 26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 134; PO Resp. 48 (discussing, but not disputing, these assertions).13 Third, we agree that a POSITA would have recognized in view of Martin’s teachings and the knowledge of a skilled artisan that when configuring Wojnarowski’s device, the total forward voltage drop of the series-connected LEDs should approximately match the DC voltage output 13 Petitioner explains the relationship between voltage and current for the LEDs as follows: “the total voltage drop of the circuit would dictate the current drawn by the LED circuitry, which would have been known to be inversely proportional to the voltage.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 134). of Wojnarowski’s circuit. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 132–38; Ex. 1008, Abstract (LED voltage “must be matched to the input source voltage”), ¶ 60 (“For AC or any other regularly varying input voltage, there is an additional requirement to direct drive voltage matching”)). For example, Martin teaches that “[t]he number of LEDs in the monolithic array may be selected to achieve a particular voltage drop across each device.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 22. Martin further explains, “[t]he voltage across each of the individual LEDs in the array is the line voltage divided by the number of LEDs in series,” and “[t]he number of LEDs is chosen such that the maximum voltage across each individual LED during the peak in the alternating current cycle is low enough so as not to damage the LEDs.” Id. The forward voltage drop across Martin’s 38 LEDs is about 171 V, which matches Martin’s AC input voltage peak of about 169.71 V. See id. (“At 120 RMS volts, the peak voltage will be about 180V [correction: 169.71 V],” and if the LEDs “can tolerate a maximum forward voltage of 4.5V, at least 38 LEDs connected in series are required.” (38 LEDs x 4.5 V = 171 V)); PO Resp. 41–42 (“While Martin references ‘about 180V,’ both parties agree that the correct value of the peak voltage Vp is 169.71 V.” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 127)). Although Martin’s LED forward voltage drop (171 V) differs slightly from the peak input voltage (169.71 V), Patent Owner conceded at the hearing that the claimed “matches” does not require an exact equivalence. Tr. 38:9–11 (“Patent Owner agrees . . . that matching has a meaning that goes beyond exact equivalence.”).14” slip op. at 22

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

    “35 U.S.C. § 311(b). PO Resp. 22–25. This statute provides that “[a] petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” § 311(b) (emphasis added). Patent Owner contends that Martin is not available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) because it is not a patent or printed publication and is only prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). PO Resp. 22. Patent Owner argues that documents are “printed publications” as of the date they become available to the public, and Martin became public on its publication date of October 21, 2004, after the February 25, 2004 priority date of the ’979 patent. Id. at 23. Patent Owner raises a similar argument for the Soules-II reference in Ground 6. Id. at 25– 26. Petitioner responds that the AIA framework permits the use of § 102(e) prior art in IPR proceedings, unlike formerly available covered business method review (CBM) proceedings, which restricted challenges to § 102(a) prior art. Reply 29. We agree. The statute governing the formerlyavailable CBM proceeding explicitly limits challenges based on “prior art that is described by section 102(a).” AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). In contrast, § 311(b) more broadly permits challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The broader language in § 311(b) implies that unlike CBMs, IPRs are not limited to challenges solely under § 102(a) prior art. The parties cite to no Federal Circuit decisions that squarely address this issue. However, the Federal Circuit has applied § 102(e) patent application publication prior art in appeals from IPR proceedings. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, 767 Fed. App’x 918, 920–21, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential) (determining that a § 102(e) patent application publication was available as prior art in an IPR). The Board has also long permitted challenges based on patent application publications under § 102(e). See, e.g., Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 14 at 27 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2013) (instituting trial over § 102(e) ground based on a patent application publication). We therefore find Patent Owner’s § 311(b) argument unpersuasive.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 10,652,979 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,652,979
• Momentum Dynamics Corporation v. Witricity CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 22, 2022 · IPR2021-01167 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18, 36, 37, 43, 44, and 49 are unpatentable; claims 46–48, 50, and 51 were not shown unpatentable, chiefly because the asserted art lacked the construed configurable bridge structure.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the purported invention would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or an equivalent field, and at least two years’ industry experience, or equivalent research. Alternatively, a POSA could substitute directly relevant additional education for experience, e.g., an advanced degree relating to the design of circuits using inductive coupling, or an advance degree in electrical engineering or an equivalent field with at least one year of industry experience. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–12). Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in the art. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions addressed by the ’581 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill, except that we delete the phrase “at least” to avoid ambiguity.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Turning to our analysis, we first note that means-plus-function claiming occurs when a claim term is drafted in a manner that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6, which states: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.6 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[T]he use of the word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies.” Id. (citing Personalized Media 6 See supra, n.2 (explaining that the pre-AIA version of § 112 applies). Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). That presumption is not rebutted here. Neither party disputes that 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6 applies to all of the “means” terms recited in the ’581 patent claims. Pet. 11–16; PO Resp. 7–15, 34–35. “Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process. The court must first identify the claimed function. . . . Then, the court must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351 (citing Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). “Structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as ‘corresponding structure’ if the intrinsic evidence clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Id. at 1352 (citing B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Petitioner that the claimed function in the “means for converting” limitation is “converting a power from a power supply system to a power at an operating frequency for transfer of wireless energy.” Pet. 11. But we disagree with Petitioner that the corresponding structure is “an oscillator with amplifier; the half-bridge inverter in Figure 19A below; or the full-bridge inverter in Figure 19B.” See id. For the reasons below, we identify the disclosed structure corresponding to the “means for converting” limitation to be “a bridge circuit configurable between a full-bridge mode and a half-bridge mode, as shown in Figures 19A and 19B, and equivalents thereof.”” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). For lexicography, “[e]ven when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, the specification may define claim terms by implication such that the meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1150 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). For example, “a patent’s repeated and consistent description of a claim term may inform its construction.” Groove Digital, Inc. v. United Bank, 825 Fed. App’x 852 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential) (citing Abbott, 696 F.3d at 1150). For disavowal to be applicable, “the specification must contain expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Cont’l Circuits, 915 F.3d at 797 (quotations and citations omitted).” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,884,581 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,884,581
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2021-00917 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–9 and 12 are unpatentable as anticipated by Numazaki; claims 11 and 13 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “We agree that the preamble of claim 7 is limiting. The last clause of claim 7 refers back to the preamble and is understood with reference thereto. The last clause states: “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said information.” Ex. 1001, 26:4–5 (emphasis added). “Said apparatus” derives antecedent basis from the “[h]andheld computer apparatus” recited in the preamble. “Said apparatus” does not refer to “apparatus” in the abstract, dissected from the rest of the term. Moreover, the “means for controlling a function of said apparatus” can be understood because of this reference to the handheld computer apparatus. We disagree with Petitioner that the “handheld computer” portion of the term “[h]andheld computer apparatus” can be ignored. The claim defines the “apparatus” as a “[h]andheld computer apparatus,” and we determine that there is no legal basis for us to dissect this phrase. Petitioner argues that the body of claim 7 only refers to the “apparatus” and not to “handheld computer,” thus “handheld computer” is not essential. But the term is “[h]andheld computer apparatus” not merely “apparatus,” and the body of apparatus.” Thus, we determine that the single term in the preamble, “[h]andheld computer apparatus,” is limiting because it recites essential structure and is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to claim 7.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesNo construction neededOther

    “Though the parties disagree as to whether the term should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6, both constructions essentially encompass cameras, and therefore it is unnecessary for us to construe as resolution of the dispute does not turn on whichever construction we pick.” slip op. at 10

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

    “As the Petition does not identify a cell phone in Numazaki as teaching the limitation of claim 11 it cannot show how the Numazaki teaches all of the limitations of the claim. Further, even under Petitioner’s own construction the Petition is deficient. The Petition contains no analysis of how Numazaki’s transmission unit 356 corresponds with the structure of a mobile phone link or equivalents this shortcoming by stating that the “transmission unit” “is part of a ‘TV telephone’ embodiment” in Numazaki; and further arguing that the “transmission unit” is a “functional equivalent for transmitting information.” Reply 22 (emphasis omitted). Notably absent from Petitioner’s argument is an explanation of how the “transmission unit” is a functional equivalent to a mobile phone link. Thus, Petitioner makes no assertion that the transmission unit is the same as or equivalent to the structure Petitioner has identified in the ’431 patent as the relevant structure under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 6. For these reasons, Petitioner has not satisfied its burden with respect to its own claim construction. As discussed above, the Petition fails to show how Numazaki teaches the limitation of claim 11 whether under our claim construction or Petitioner’s.” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached

    “As noted previously, Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, 800 F.3d at 1378. At this stage Petitioner must show that the claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner has not met its burden. For example, Petitioner merely asserts that the word “remote” means “physically separate” without explanation. Petitioner does not address or explain how “remote” is used in the context of Cousins. Petitioner does not address the specific teachings related to an “expert system” in Cousins or how they would be understood in context. Petitioner does not explain why system” (Pet. 20–21) means that the expert system is within the housing of or part of the imaging device.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 7,933,431 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,933,431
• Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Noco CompanySome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2021 · IPR2020-00944 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–23 are unpatentable over the listed grounds; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed connection sequence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Q. So Richardson contemplates a flow of control where the shunt calibration flag was not set, correct? A. That is reasonable. He shows an option -- an option of a “no” result from Step 406. Ex. 1047, 110:14–18. Dr. Wood also agrees that when the shunt calibration flag is not set and the procedure advances to Step 420, the contact relay in Richardson is still open: Q. Now, if the shunt calibration flag is not set and we go to Step 420, the starter contact relay in Richardson is still open, correct? A. That is my understanding. Id. at 77:10–13. Dr. Wood further agrees that when the shunt calibration flag is not set and the procedure advances to Step 214, where reverse polarity connection is tested, the starter contact relay is still open: Q. Okay. Then if we continue to Step 214 in this example, where the shunt calibration flag was not set, when we’re testing for the condition reverse jumper cable voltage, the starter contact relay is still open, right? A. That appears to be the case.” slip op. at 65

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

    “Referring to FIG. 3, Klang states: “[t[he reverse polarity sensor 48, connected in a like manner across the battery terminals 20, 22, senses negative voltage indicating that the battery leads are connected backwards.” Ex. 1007, 6:20–23. Klang’s reverse polarity sensor provides an output signal (sensed negative voltage) indicating whether the battery has a proper polarity connection. Klang states: “[i]f the start button has not been pressed, at step 144, the OCV [battery open circuit voltage] is compared to a low negative voltage to determine whether the conducting cables 18 are properly connected to the battery 16. If the OCV is less than -0.5V, the method proceeds at step 146 to notify the operator that the leads are reversed.” Ex. 1007, 8:55– 60.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “references. Accordingly, consideration and discussion of the objective evidence of nonobviousness is unnecessary.” slip op. at 92

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “discussed below, the Motion is denied.” slip op. at 94

  Patent outcomesUS 9,007,015 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,007,015

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.