• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00430 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6–10, 14–18, and 22–24 are unpatentable; claims 4–5, 11–13, and 19–21 are not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that the ’690 patent does not limit the term “probe” to channel assessment. Pet. Reply 2–4. Reviewing the intrinsic evidence, the “Technical Field” of the ’690 patent states that “some embodiments relate to channel assessment probes,” implying others do not. Ex. 1001, 1:13–14. The ’690 patent further states that “receiver determined probes may be used in a variety of applications” including to “discover hidden nodes” and “off-site network diagnosis.” Id. at 2:20–27. In addition, the ’690 patent states that probes may be used for “network maintenance procedures,” to “replicate a potential problem, reach or discover a distant or previously undetected node on the network, or assist with network admissions procedures.” Id. at 4:25–38. Turning to the claims of the ’690 patent, the evidence of record does not establish that the independent claims recite anything unique or specific to channel assessment (although their scope covers that purpose). Furthermore, dependent claim 7 of the ’690 patent recites that the “probe” is used to diagnose a network problem, and dependent claim 13 recites that the “probe” is used to identify a hidden node. Restricting the independent claims to probes used solely for channel assessment would be contradictory to these dependent claims. Littlefuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F.4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (construction of term in independent claims should not render dependent claims superfluous or lacking scope).” slip op. at 20

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that a “physical layer probe” is “a probe that relates to the physical layer.” The term does not appear per se in the specification of the ’960 patent, nor in the prosecution history, but only in claims 9, 17, and 19. However, the term “physical layer” is well-known and is the first layer in the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) network model. See, e.g., Ex. 1021, 35–40, 69; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49–50. The physical layer is used to transmit digital bits over a network, and defines the timing, mechanical, and physical network characteristics required for transmitting the data bits. Hence, a “physical layer probe” is a probe that relates to the physical layer. We need not, and do not, construe the term further to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Realtime, Vivid Techs., supra. Having decided proper constructions for the disputed terms, we proceed in our analysis to consider the parties’ arguments concerning the challenge grounds. In the following sections, we apply the plain meaning of the claim terms, and as necessary, specify what the plain meanings are.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends as follows: A POSITA8 would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, and three to four years of experience working in signal processing and/or communication systems/networks. Additional education may substitute for experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 115–120). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed skill level because it is consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’690 patent and the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. In addition, we find the adopted skill level consistent with the education and experience that a POSITA would have had. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)) (citing factors to consider when determining level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 25

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

    “Hence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by preponderant evidence that the Ranging Request (“probe request”) message includes CID and SS MAC address and other parameters (“first plurality of parameters”) which at least specify the CID (“content payload of the probe”) and the SS MAC address (“second node”) of the Ranging Response.12 We thus proceed to consider Petitioner’s contentions for the remaining limitations of claim 1, which are undisputed, and determine that claim 1 is anticipated by IEEE-802.16.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,284,690 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,284,690
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2023-01027 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 37–70 are unpatentable: claims 37–41, 47, 50–56, 58–59, 60–62, 64–65, and 70 as anticipated by Alden; the remaining challenged claims as obvious over Alden and the listed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). 3 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/70538 A2 (Exhibit 1010). 4 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/01038 (Exhibit 1006). 5 U.S. Patent No. 4,970,628 (Exhibit 1007). 6 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,158 (Exhibit 1008). 7 U.S Patent No. 6,049,749 (Exhibit 1009). 8 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 02/04247 A1 (Exhibit 1011). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (PO Resp. 4), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Claim Construction We construe claims using the standard that would be applied in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), giving terms their ordinary and customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and prosecution history. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The Petition asserts that all claim terms should be given their “ordinary and customary meaning.” See Pet. 8. Patent Owner also proposes that the claim terms be given their ordinary meaning, and identifies the “ordinary meaning” for the terms “identify,” “turn,” and “curve,” which we discuss in our analysis below. We otherwise find that that no express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00446 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21

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

    “how and why persons of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the existing rules to prevent exfiltrations. PO Sur-reply 3. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s assertions to make them “drop” rules, per Sourcefire, relies on what an administrator could have done, not what they would have been motivated to do. Id. at 4–5 (citing Pet. 57–58). We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art, combining Sourcefire and Emerging Threats, would have understood that downloaded rules should be reviewed, and it would have been obvious to enable rules that such persons deemed appropriate. We find Dr. Staniford’s testimony to be persuasive on this point. See Ex. 2011, 67:10–68:24, 69:8–72; Ex. 1020, 109. We acknowledge that downloading all of a particualr ruleset from Emerging Threats and enabling all the rules, might have resulted in a drop in performance of the network appliance, but, at the same time, we are significant drop in performance, especially if a potential threat might be sufficient to warrant a minor performance hit. Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledged at oral hearing that instituting all rules of a set in “alert” mode would not result in a decrease in performance, even though some computational outlay must be engaged to engage those alert rules. See Hr’g Tr. 24:24–25:4. We are persuaded that judiciously implementing certain rules would not necessary result in a network device that is unusable. Additionally, there is testimony from Dr. Staniford that “you start out with your rules in alert because there might be false positives. I mean, for the best rule in the world, Snort wasn’t known for false positives in the rules, when you apply them to a large network.” Ex. 2011, 68:2–7. As such, we continue to determine that it would have been obvious, in combining Sourcefire with Emerging Threats, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have downloaded rules and implemented specific rules.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Reviewing all of the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the Petition’s obviousness rationale based on Sourcefire and Emerging Threats is not guided by impermissible hindsight bias. We find persuasive Dr. Staniford’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “this rule [SID:2003021] was not directed to looking for instances of exploits or attacks (which would be invisible within the encryption) but rather was looking for exfiltration of some kind of encrypted data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. As discussed by Petitioner, such recognition was also made by Mr. Marinho and Dr. Goodrich, such that the rule would have been understood to possibly prevent exfiltrations. We continue to be persuaded that Petitioner provides that a correspondence exists between the REQUIRE-TLS-1.1-1.2 operator in the ’343 Patent and SID:2003021 in Emerging Threats, in that both detect an SSL/TLS version in application packet header field values to detect exfiltration attempts using out-of-date encryption protocols. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 229–230). We are ’343 Patent discloses the interruption of a similar type of exfiltration, without resorting to impermissible hindsight bias, that Patent Owner asserts. Patent Owner has provided no evidence that Petitioner used the specification of the ’343 Patent to find an applicable rule in Emerging Threats, as opposed to the testified-version provided by Dr. Staniford that he recalls “working on a similar feature where we looked for large encrypted transmissions outbound from the network on non-HTTP ports as a possible symptom of exfiltration of large amounts of data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,567,343
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2024 · IPR2023-01027 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable over the cited prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We may institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons provided below, and based on the record as it now stands, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review. B.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenMixed

    “Regarding the claimed “predefined threshold value” or “predefined illuminance,” Petitioner asserts that “Alden’s system can ‘provide illumination to independently controlled segments [e.g., ‘subsections’] each operable within a range of intensities between the high and the low beam state” and that Alden’s “intensities in between high beam and low beam (e.g., medium) are the claimed ‘predefined threshold value’ which the low beam would be below and the high beam would be above.” Pet. 25. We tend to disagree with this analysis, as it does not appear that a “range of intensities” is a “predefined threshold value” or “predefined illuminance,” if those terms are given their ordinary meaning. We thus conclude that, on this record at least, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that Alden anticipates these claims. Regarding obviousness in view of Alden alone, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has “failed to establish or demonstrate multiple elements that are required to support an obviousness conclusion, including explaining how Alden must be modified (i.e., identifying the differences between the claimed invention and Alden) and explaining why a POSA would be motivated to so modify Alden (i.e., providing some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion).” Prelim. Resp. 37. We agree. It does not appear that Petitioner has provided any basis on which to account for differences between Alden and the challenged claims based on Alden’s disclosures alone.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (Prelim. Resp. 7), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner does not seek construction of any claim terms and asserts that “all claim terms [discussed in the Petition] are given [their] ordinary and customary meaning.” Petition 8. Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary” at this time because its “arguments for denial do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” Prelim. Resp. 7. There being no present dispute about the meaning of any claim term, we find that no express claim construction is necessary to resolve the issues addressed in this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00974 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6–9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 22–25, 27, 28, 32, and 36–38 are unpatentable as obvious over Hwang and McFarland.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • 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 in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent field as well as three years of experience in wireless communication technology, or a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or other equivalent degree.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–40). Patent Owner has not proposed an alternative, and, having reviewed the arguments and evidence in the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, as we did in the Institution Decision, finding it consistent with the ’641 patent and the asserted prior art. C.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner proposes a construction for the term “radio network information” in dependent claims 9, 14, and 28. See Pet. 7. Patent Owner has not proposed a specific construction for any claim term and has not disputed Petitioner’s proposed construction for “radio network information.” In view of the analysis below, we determine that we need not expressly construe “radio network information,” and that no other claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “Figure from Page 17 of the Akl Supplemental Declaration We find it unclear from this figure and the associated explanation in the Declaration (see Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 30–32) how the map burst and traffic burst blocks in green and blue factor in, because they cannot be received by the 2.5 MHz device. Dr. Akl testified that “McFarland teaches that necessary messages, e.g., including broadcast messages, or any other messages that need to be received by multiple nodes, ‘must be transmitted in a mode that all nodes to which they are directed are able to receive,’ that is, the base mode (e.g., the core-band).” Ex. 1038 ¶ 31 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 60). He then states that one “would understand that because Hwang’s AAS_MAP_Burst_Location_IE contains system information and an index of where the MAP bursts are going to be, it is a message that needs to be received by multiple nodes, and thus is a necessary message that must be transmitted in a mode that all nodes to which they are directed are able to receive.” Id. It does not appear, however, that the blue and green blocks could be part of “broadcast messages” intended for a 2.5 MHz mobile station because they cannot be received by that mobile station. We thus do not agree that McFarland would suggest including map burst blocks in the 2.5 MHz band because they are “broadcast messages.” We also fail to see why the map burst locations would need to be received by multiple nodes, as that seems to be data that is tailored to the mobile device with which the base station is communicating.7 However, we do find it readily apparent that if the base station and the mobile station have determined to communicate using a particular bandwidth, as contemplated by the combination presented in the Petition, the map bursts necessarily would be included in that bandwidth in order for the communication scheme to be successful. The mobile station would need to” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,953,641 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,953,641
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2022 · IPR2020-01207 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–10, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grupp ’483; claims 11, 12, and 14 were not shown unpatentable because Grupp ’483 is not prior art to them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner. “[A p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide5 73; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Here, Petitioner’s breadth challenge to the written description support for the genus of “the metal oxide of the interface layer comprises an oxide of 5 Consolidated Office Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/consolidated-trial-practice-guide-november-2019. titanium” recited in claims 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14–16, was part of Petitioner’s prima facie case, which could have, and should have, been presented with the Petition. Thus, Petitioner could not properly wait until its Reply to specifically challenge the description support for the breadth of that class in the pre-2011 priority applications. See Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Heath, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we will not consider the breadth challenge to a metal oxide comprising an oxide of titanium that Petitioner presented for the first time in its Reply. As for the breadth challenge presented in the Petition—that the pre- 2011 priority applications do not describe the breadth of the class of metal oxides, that challenge is inapplicable here because claims 11, 12, and 14 narrow the recited class to comprising an oxide of titanium, which is a far narrower class. Dr. Schubert provides examples of numerous metal oxides that do not comprise oxides of titanium. Ex. 1022, Schubert Decl. ¶ 94 (hafnium oxide and zirconium oxide); Ex. 1053, Schubert Reply Decl. ¶¶ 18, 19 (see the compounds identified in that paragraph beyond titanium dioxide), 20. Petitioner does not dispute that the pre-2011 priority applications disclose a species within the scope of the recited genus. Pet. 18–22. To the contrary, Petitioner relies on one of the pre-2011 priority applications (Grupp ’483) as disclosing a species (with TiO2) as proof that claims 11, 12, and 14 are anticipated. See id. at 40–44. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not proven that the pre-2011 priority applications fail to describe the genus of the metal oxide of the interface layer comprises an oxide of titanium. Therefore, Petitioner has not proven that Patent Owner is not entitled to the benefit of the pre-2011 priority applications for claims 11, 12, and 14 due to a lack of written description support. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven that Grupp ’483 is prior art for those claims.” slip op. at 27

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedPriority date awardedMixed

    “2. Analysis We agree with Petitioner that the pre-2011 priority applications do not describe the recited genus. To support a claim to a genus, a specification must disclose “either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Here, the recited genus is an interface layer comprising a metal oxide. Ex. 1001, 18:45–52. It is undisputed that the only species the pre- 2011 priority applications disclose is TiO2, as set forth in the following passage: Two other properties of the dielectric deserve mention. First is the property of the height of the barrier compared to the semiconductor conduction band (for electrons). In making the barrier thinner than a silicide barrier, the tradeoff may be a higher tunnel barrier (e.g., 2 eV for nitride, compared with about half the gap of 0.6 eV for silicide). Spacer layers may be used with lower barriers (e.g., TiO2 has a barrier of less than 1 eV). Nevertheless, even with the higher barrier to electrons, the present inventors have determined that the resistance can still be one hundred times lower than a contact to silicon with a silicide barrier. Id. at 18:1–11 (emphasis added). The pre-2011 priority applications incorporate by reference U.S.” slip op. at 17

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

    “As set forth below, we find that Petitioner has proven that Grupp ’483 anticipates claims 1–6, 8–10, 15, and 16. a. Claim 1 Petitioner argues that Grupp ’483 discloses an electrical junction, citing Grupp 483’s disclosure that “the present invention provides an electrical junction.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1021, Grupp ’483, 3:44–47). Petitioner further argues that Grupp ’483 discloses a region in a semiconductor substrate by describing a source or drain of a transistor. Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1022, Schubert Decl. ¶ 110). According to Petitioner, Grupp ’483 discloses a metal electrical contact to said region by describing “an electrical device in which an interface layer is disposed between and in contact with a metal and a semiconductor.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1021, Grupp ’483, 4:21–23) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner asserts that Grupp ’483 discloses “said region being electrically connected to said metal electrical contact through said interface layer” by describing “the present invention provides an electrical device in which an interface layer is disposed between and in contact with a metal and a semiconductor and is configured to depin the Fermi level of the semiconductor while still permitting current flow between the metal and the semiconductor . . . .” Id. at 29 (quoting Ex. 1021, Grupp ’483, 4:21–26) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner further argues that Grupp ’483 discloses “said interface layer comprising a metal oxide and a semiconductor oxide” by describing an interface layer that includes (1) a passivation layer, which can be a semiconductor oxide; and (2) a separation layer, which can be titanium dioxide, a metal oxide. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1022, Schubert Decl. ¶ 114). Petitioner further asserts that Grupp ’483 discloses “being in contact with said region in the semiconductor substrate and said metal electrical contact” by describing “an interface layer is disposed between and in contact with a metal and a semiconductor.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1021, Grupp ’483, 4:21–23) (emphasis omitted). After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner has proven that Grupp ’483 anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 40

  • ExcludeOther

    “We dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot in light of our determination regarding Petitioner’s written description challenge to Patent Owner’s benefit of its pre-2011 priority applications for claims 11, 12, and 14. In particular, Petitioner relies on the testimony at issue to support its belated challenge to the breadth of written description support in the pre- 2011 priority applications for the class of comprising an oxide of titanium that is recited by those claims. Reply Br. 7–12. Because we decided not to consider that belated challenge (see Section III.A.1.b above), the Motion to Exclude is moot.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 10,090,395 mixed
  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,090,395
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01206 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 13, 20, 22, and 25 were held unpatentable as anticipated by Grupp ’483; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedPriority date awardedMixed

    “mental steps that an ordinarily skilled artisan theoretically might have taken after reviewing the minimal disclosure in the ’423 patent. The ’423 patent does not discuss any properties of metal oxides (other than the lower barrier of the metal oxide TiO2) or design considerations concerning the selection of particular oxides to use in the claimed structure, particularly in the context of MIGS separation. Dr. Kuhn cites very little, if any, evidence to support her testimony regarding the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Thus, we do not credit this analysis as showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found that the inventors of the pre-2011 priority applications possessed the recited genus. See Ariad, 593 F.3d at 1352 (a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the written description requirement); Power Oasis Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.”) (quoting In re Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002), quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 505 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding that the written description requirement is “not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee’s device from the teachings of the disclosure . . . . Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device”) (emphasis in original).” slip op. at 22

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner. A petitioner “may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 734; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Here, 4 Consolidated Office Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/consolidated-trial-practice-guide-november-2019. Petitioner’s breadth challenge to the written description support for the genus of “the metal oxide of the interface layer comprises an oxide of titanium” recited in claims 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14–16 was part of Petitioner’s prima facie case, which could have, and should have, been presented with the Petition. Thus, Petitioner could not properly wait until its Reply to specifically challenge the description support for the breadth of that class in the pre-2011 priority applications. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Heath, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Accordingly, we will not consider the breadth challenge to oxides of titanium that Petitioner presented for the first time in its Reply.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Schubert, identifies a large number of metal oxides and multiple metal oxides that is expanded by multiple equilibrium species and notes that the metal oxide genus would be even further expanded to include non-equilibrium species. Ex. 1047, Schubert Decl. 2 ¶¶ 18–22. Dr. Schubert further emphasizes the significant variation in physical and chemical properties of such metal oxides. Id. at ¶¶ 27–51. Much of Dr. Kuhn’s analysis is premised on her assessment of the mental steps that an ordinarily skilled artisan theoretically might have taken after reviewing the minimal disclosure in the ’423 patent. The ’423 patent does not discuss any properties of metal oxides (other than the lower barrier of the metal oxide TiO2) or design considerations concerning the selection of particular oxides to use in the claimed structure, particularly in the context of MIGS separation. Dr. Kuhn cites very little, if any, evidence to support her testimony regarding the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Thus, we do not credit this analysis as showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found that the inventors of the pre-2011 priority applications possessed the recited genus. See Ariad, 593 F.3d at 1352 (a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the written description requirement); Power Oasis Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.”) (quoting In re Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002), quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 505 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding that the written description requirement is “not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee’s device from the teachings of the disclosure . . . . Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device”) (emphasis in original).” slip op. at 21

  • ExcludeOther

    “Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is moot in light of our determination regarding Petitioner’s written description challenge to Patent Owner’s benefit of its pre-2011 priority applications for claims 6, 8, 10–12, 15–19, 26–29. In particular, Petitioner relies on the testimony at issue to support its belated challenge to the breadth of written description support in the pre-2011 priority applications for the oxide of titanium class recited by those claims. Pet. Reply7–12. Because we decided not to consider that belated challenge (see Section III.E.1.b), the Motion to Exclude is moot.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 9,905,691 mixed
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 9,905,691
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01205 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 8–12, and 14–16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grupp ’483; the priority applications do not support or enable the claims’ full scope.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateEntitled to earlier dateMixed

    “To support a claim to a genus, a specification must disclose “either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Here, the recited genus is an interface layer comprising a metal oxide, where the interface layer is configured to provide a specific contact resistivity between a contact metal and a semiconductor of than 1 Ω- μm2. Ex. 1001, 18:37–43. It is undisputed that the only species the pre- 2011 priority applications disclose is TiO2, as set forth in the following passage: Two other properties of the dielectric deserve mention. First is the property of the height of the barrier compared to the semiconductor conduction band (for electrons). In making the barrier thinner than a silicide barrier, the tradeoff may be a higher tunnel barrier (e.g., 2 eV for nitride, compared with about half the gap of 0.6 eV for silicide). Spacer layers may be used with lower barriers (e.g., TiO2 has a barrier of less than 1 eV). Nevertheless, even with the higher barrier to electrons, the present inventors have determined that the resistance can still be one hundred times lower than a contact to silicon with a silicide barrier. Id. at 17:59–18:2 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 18

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “evidence shows, that the disclosure does not enable specific contact resistance down to zero. Ex. 1016, Schubert Decl. ¶¶ 87–90. Instead, Patent Owner argues that one of skill in the art would have understood there to be an “inherent lower limit” and that the claims are enabled because one of skill in the art could achieve that lower limit through experimentation based on the disclosure of patent. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument, for two main reasons. First, we do not agree that the cases cited by Patent Owner establish that the enablement requirement is satisfied if one of skill in the art could experiment in accordance with the disclosure to find a practical end of an open ended range recited in a claim. Patent Owner principally relies on Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, but the Federal Circuit in that case affirmed the jury verdict of enablement because “the upper limit of the Young’s modulus of the structural member would lie somewhere between the Young’s modulus of the wood fiber and that of the polymer used in the composition.” 474 F.3d at 1377. In other words, there were two known quantities that provided a fixed range. That is not the case here, where Patent Owner does not point to any such predefined limits. Patent Owner also cites a district court case, PerkinElmer Health Scis., Inc. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 962 F. Supp. 2d 304, 310 (D. Mass. 2013). That case is not directly on point, because it was considering claim construction and not enablement, but that court also found an existing practical upper limit to the” slip op. at 36

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

    “Neither party asks for a construction of the subject claim language, and we determine that the plain meaning of “a specific contact resistivity . . . of less than 1Ω μm2” would encompass all specific contact resistances below 1 Ω-μm2 and down to zero.” slip op. at 35

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableReference is prior artUnpatentable

    “reference for purposes of anticipation under section 102 [] differs from the enablement standard under section 112.” Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Enablement under section 112, which is required for priority under section 120, requires enablement of the full breadth of a claim. Wyeth and Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, 720 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2013); MagSil, 687 F.3d at 1384; 35 U.S.C. § 120. Enablement for anticipation does not; rather it requires only enablement of an embodiment or embodiments that fall within the scope of the claim. Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“a CIP's claim for a genus might not be enabled by a parent's disclosure, but that parent may enable a species that anticipates the CIP's claim for a genus . . . . the Court of Custom and Patent Appeals [] made clear the differences between the requirements for claim-anticipating disclosures and for claim-supporting disclosures”) (citing In re Lukach, 442, F.2d 967, 969–970 (CCPA 1971)). Here, the enablement challenge for priority is for a lack of enablement of the full breadth of the recited range, and in particular, a lack of enablement of the lower part of the recited range (that which is at or near zero). No party has argued that the upper part of the recited range (just below 1 Ω-μm2) is not enabled by either the priority applications or Grupp ’483. See, e.g., Pet. 20; PO Resp. 1–2; Pet. Reply 27–28; PO Sur-reply 17– 18. And enablement by a prior art patent is presumed. In re Antor Media Pharm., Inc., 545 F.3d 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, the record does not reflect an inconsistency in holding the priority applications as not enabling the breadth of the recited range while treating Grupp ’483 as enabling the upper part of the range for anticipation. As set forth below, we find that Petitioner has proven that Grupp ’483 anticipates every challenged claim.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 9,461,167 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,461,167
• Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 15, 2020 · IPR2018-01251 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–8, 11, and 14 are unpatentable under § 103 over Zhang and Konoplev, with Nonaka and Gonzalez added for the dependent-claim grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted. Although there are slight differences between the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art, the parties’ declarants agree that a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in a field such as computer science and professional experience in image processing would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1017 ¶ 7; Ex. 2005 ¶ 26. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we determine that the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been that of a person having a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related discipline, and three years of experience in image processing. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art in our analysis.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner proposes a construction for “physical object of a predetermined type.” Pet.14–15. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 6. Further, there is no dispute between the parties that the art teaches “determining whether a first portion of digital image data represents a physical object of a predetermined type.” See generally PO Resp. Therefore, this term does not require express construction. Based on the trial record, we do not find it necessary to construe expressly any claim terms.” slip op. at 7

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

    “asserting Konoplev as prior art because Konoplev’s non-provisional filing date precedes the ’132 patent’s non-provisional filing date. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. The burden of production, i.e., “the burden of going forward with evidence,” then shifted to Patent Owner to show that Konoplev is not prior art because the ’132 patent is entitled to an earlier filing date. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–80. As the Federal Circuit has stated, this “mean[s] both producing additional evidence and presenting persuasive argument based on new evidence or evidence already of record, as the case may require.” Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, Patent Owner provides no argument at all explaining how the ’132 Provisional Application’s Z-Light disclosures provide written description support for the determining and applying steps of claim 1. Nor does Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Villasenor, provide testimony explaining how the disclosure of the Z-Light module conveys possession of the invention to persons of ordinary skill in the art. Rather, Dr. Villasenor testifies, “In light of what I have been informed about regarding written description and enablement (¶¶35-37, above), and as demonstrated in the below claim chart, it is my opinion that the claims at issue (Claims 1, 5-8, 11, and 14) are supported by” the ’132 Provisional Application, and he reproduces the same claim chart that is in the Patent Owner Response. Ex. 2005 ¶ 43. The only substantive explanation of the ’132 Provisional Application that Dr. Villasenor provides has to do with maintaining local contrast, which pertains to claim 8. Ex. 2005 ¶ 44. Patent Owner directs us to no evidence in the record showing that the Z-Light module would have been readily recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art such that its disclosure would provide written the ’132 patent itself. Based on the foregoing, we determine Patent Owner has failed to carry its burden of production to show—with evidence and persuasive argument—that the ’132 Provisional Application provides section 112, first paragraph support for claim 1 of the ’132 patent, and, by virtue of their dependency, claims 5–8, 11, and 14, at least as to the written description requirement. Therefore, Konoplev is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(2) because its June 15, 2010, filing date is before the ’132 patent’s December 6, 2010, filing date.” slip op. at 13

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

    “upon teachings of correcting facial imperfections, discussed above, and a reason to utilize those teachings, namely “to enhance the original image quality.” Ex. 1009, 1:64–67; see also Ex. 1009, 6:24–30 (“If, in step 150, faces are found in the image, the facial skin is enhanced by the skin-recognition filter applied to detected facial areas of the image in step 160. The filter uses wrinkle reducing parameters. Then, in step 170, the facial skin is enhanced by the skin-recognition filter applied to detected facial areas using spots/blemishes reducing parameters.” (emphases added)). Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner must provide more than generic incentives and conclusory statements to support its obviousness rationale.” PO Sur-reply 15. Here, however, Konoplev expressly provides a reason to utilize its facial correction techniques—to enhance image quality. Ex. 1009, 1:64–67, 6:24–27. Thus, Petitioner’s proffered rationale—“provid[ing] automatic correction of facial imperfections to further improve the quality of images containing faces” (Pet. 22)—is supported by the prior art itself.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,447,132 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,447,132

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.