• Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2019 · IPR2018-01039 · APJ Scott R Boalick · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing on printed-publication accessibility, finding a reasonable likelihood Dougherty was publicly accessible before the critical date, and remanded for consideration of institution on obviousness.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “We grant Petitioner’s request for rehearing. We conclude that, based on the totality of the evidence currently in the record, Petitioner has submitted evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the Dougherty reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent, and, thus Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that the reference qualifies as a printed publication. In view of this holding, we remand to the merits panel to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3

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

    “reasonable likelihood that a reference is a printed publication. If trial is instituted, the petitioner will ultimately have the burden to prove that the reference is a printed publication by a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude that, based on the totality of the evidence currently in the record, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that the Dougherty reference is a printed publication that was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent. V. ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that Request for Rehearing is granted to address the POP review issue; and FURTHER ORDERED that the matter is remanded to the original merits panel for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including consideration of whether to institute a trial on the merits of the obviousness ground presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 21

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

    “institution, and based on the totality of the evidence to date, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Dougherty is a printed publication. The face of Dougherty bears a copyright date of 1990, a printing date of November 1992, and an ISBN date of 8/94. Ex. 1004, 4. In addition, the book is a textbook from an established publisher, O’Reilly, and a well-known book series. See Canon Br. 11–12 (quoting https://www.oreilly.com/about/history.html). As Canon asserts, the cover of Publisher’s Weekly stated (with respect to this series) that “The Internet Was Built With O’Reilly Books.” Id. Altogether, this is sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood that Dougherty is a printed publication that a publisher made available to the pertinent public prior to the October 1995 critical date.” slip op. at 19

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 5,806,062
• Haag-Streit AG v. Eidolon Optical, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2019 · IPR2018-01311 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 6, 8–10, 14–16, and 19 were not shown unpatentable because the cited references did not disclose an LED itself generating blue light energy.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating that it “appear[ed] consistent with the record at th[at] stage of the proceeding.” Dec. Inst. 6. Patent Owner does not address or dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-reply. Petitioner did not further address this issue in the Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. We continue to apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art in the analysis below.” slip op. at 7

  • ExcludeOther

    “As discussed above (see supra § II.C.3.a), to resolve the dispute between the parties here, we need not make a determination one way or the other regarding Patent Owner’s assertion as to the specific amount of power necessary to cause sodium fluorescein to fluoresce. Instead, the outcome here follows from the determination that Petitioner (who has the overall burden of persuasion as to unpatentability) has not persuasively established the existence, as of February 5, 1992, of a blue LED having sufficient power output to cause sodium fluorescein to fluoresce. Accordingly, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion as to Exhibit 2014 as moot because we need not rely on that exhibit (or the specific statement highlighted by Petitioner) in this Decision. See TPG 79–80.” slip op. at 43

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “commercially available by CREE, Inc. in 1992” and asserts that “Patent Owner’s arguments are wrong in that blue LEDs having sufficient output power to cause sodium fluorescein to fluoresce existed in 1992 at the time of Longobardi.” Pet. Reply 28, 32. When asked, during the oral hearing, for evidentiary support for these statements, Petitioner attempted to rely on Exhibit 2024. See Tr. 13:14–14:18 (counsel for Petitioner generally discussing Exhibit 2024 as potential support). That exhibit, however, was not discussed or relied on in either of Petitioner’s briefs. Id. at 38:22–39:20 (counsel for Petitioner discussing Exhibit 2024, but also acknowledging that it was not cited in either brief). We will not further consider Petitioner’s untimely argument as to Exhibit 2024. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting that the “Board was obligated to dismiss [the petitioner’s] untimely argument . . . raised for the first time during oral argument”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”) 85–86 (Nov. 2019) (discussing how, at the oral hearing, a party “may only present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted”), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/tpgnov.pdf. Petitioner did not identify any other record support for the two assertions as to the alleged state of the art in 1992.” slip op. at 30

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Longobardi as implicitly disclosing the presence of a blue LED is that, as argued by Patent Owner, none of the declaration testimony of Dr. Jiao supports that position. See PO Sur-reply 5 (“Petitioner lacks evidence that Longobardi implicitly or inherently teaches an LED sufficient to generate blue light energy itself as required by claim 1. Petitioner’s expert does not testify as to this fact.” (emphasis added)), 7 (“Petitioner fails to provide any expert testimony . . . that Longobardi teaches a blue light energy created by the LED.”). Indeed, in the entire section of the Reply Brief discussing why Longobardi allegedly implicitly discloses a blue LED, Petitioner never cites to Dr. Jiao’s testimony as evidence of how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the highlighted passages. See Pet. Reply 18–22; see also PO Sur-reply 14 (“Petitioner’s attorney arguments that Longobardi implicitly discloses the limitation of at least one LED sufficient to generate blue light energy itself as required by claim 1 are unreasonable.”). “Attorney argument is not evidence.” Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Elbit Sys. of Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing this aspect of Icon Health in the context of an appeal from an inter partes review). In addition, the testimony in Dr. Jiao’s Reply Declaration that is cited in Petitioner’s Reply (in the part discussing the state of the art of blue LEDs “[i]n 1992” (Pet. Reply 26)) does not actually support Petitioner on the ultimate factual issue here. See Pet. Reply 26–32 (citing Jiao Reply. Decl. ¶¶ 11–21). Instead, most of Dr. Jiao’s testimony in these paragraphs summarizes and addresses Dr. Lebby’s position on the 1-milliwatt issue (discussing Exhibits 1021 and 1022). See Jiao Reply Decl. ¶¶ 11–20. After that discussion, Dr. Jiao concludes with a paragraph taking the position that one of ordinary skill in the art “at the time of the invention would have found that Longobardi teaches and suggests the use of a blue LED having sufficient power to cause sodium fluorescein to fluoresce.” Id. ¶ 21. None of Dr. Jiao’s testimony, however, actually addresses the state of the art of blue LEDs in 1992, which, as acknowledged by Petitioner, is the relevant point in time to assess the alleged implicit disclosures in Longobardi.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,547,394 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,547,394
• Cxloyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2019 · CBM2018-00037 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under § 101; the motion to amend is granted for proposed substitute claims 16–23, which were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “does not remove the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. See Pet. 52–53; Reply 12; SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that it “does not matter to [the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea] whether the information here is information about real investments,” as “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract” (citation omitted)). Further, the last two clauses of claim 1 that recite how the transaction is viewed from the perspectives of the participant and vendor system, respectively, merely express the “non-physical result” of the information transfers and confirm the abstract nature of the claimed subject matter. See Pet. 57. In fact, as to the vendor system clause, the Specification indicates that the vendor system transfers information no differently than it would for any other transaction. See Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 15–18 (disclosing that vendor system 208 responds to purchase request 216 “in the same way that it would respond to any other purchase request from a consumer that presents a credit card”).” slip op. at 35

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “Our conclusion also is supported by the ’087 patent’s description of” slip op. at 41

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75

  • 101 substituteMixed

    “transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75

  Patent outcomesUS 7,134,087 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 7,134,087
• Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2019 · IPR2018-01140 · APJ Marc S Hoff · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 13 are unpatentable as anticipated by Ogino; claims 14 and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Ogino and Chen II.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “claims 1 and 13 of the ’032 Patent are anticipated by Ogino. Petitioner has also demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 14 and 15 of the ’032 Patent are unpatentable over the combination of Ogino and Chen II. The chart below summarizes our conclusion. References Claims Claims Claims 35. Shown Not shown Challenged U.S.C. Unpatent- Unpatentable able Ogino 1 and 13 1 and 13 § 102 Ogino, Chen 14 and 15 14 and 15 § 103 II 1 and 13-15” slip op. at 40

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “that Ogino and Chen II disclose substantially different lens systems. PO Resp. 36. As Petitioner points out, both Ogino and Chen II describe mobile phone camera systems with all lenses being aspheric; a first lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; a second lens with negative refractive power; a third lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power; a fourth lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; and a fifth lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power. Pet. Reply 22; Pet. 41–44. We agree with Petitioner that such a skilled artisan, possessing an applicable college degree, approximately three years experience in designing multi-lens optical systems, “experience in analyzing, tolerancing, adjusting, and optimizing multilens systems, and experience with lens design software such as CodeV, Oslo, or Zemax,” would have the appropriate knowledge to perform routine modifications to a lens design. Pet. Reply 24; Pet. 7; PO Resp. 12. Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Moore testified that such a skilled artisan “would be able to use the computer program [i.e. CodeV or Zemax] to optimize lens designs.” Pet. Reply 24; Ex. 1025, 29:25–30:9. Dr. Moore testified that the skilled artisan would “tell the [lens design] program that you want to vary certain parameters of a lens . . . . And then the program, through a fairly complicated algorithm, then actually goes through and varies them and determines how to make a better lens. You determine as a lens designer what you’re trying to improve.” Ex. 1025, 28:13–23.” slip op. at 38

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the skilled artisan would have understood that third, fourth, and fifth lenses also contribute to vignetting in Ogino. PO Resp. 38. We credit Petitioner’s argument that Dr. Moore’s conclusion regarding vignetting in the third, fourth, and fifth lenses is unreliable because it is based on assumptions not specified in Ogino. Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. For example, Ogino does not provide lens diameters or vignetting apertures for the lens assembly of Example 6 that would vignette the light beams on the third, fourth or fifth lens elements. Pet. Reply 17; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. Additionally, Dr. Sasián testifies that vignetting is a result of the second lens. Pet. Reply 17–18; Pet. 54; Ex. 1003, 59.” slip op. at 36

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

    “Effective Focal Length (EFL) Petitioner asserts that while the specification of the ’032 Patent does not offer an express definition for the term “effective focal length,” “its meaning is well known in the art, as exemplified in Li (Ex. 1007), which states that “[t]he focal length of a lens assembly [is] also referred to as the effective focal length [(]EFL).” Pet. 9–10 (internal parentheses omitted); Ex. 1007, 2:59–61. Patent Owner, in response, does not dispute Petitioner’s construction of “effective focal length,” stating that the Petition does not turn on the construction of the term. PO Resp. 20. Having reviewed the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner that Li supports construing the term “effective focal length” as “the focal length of a lens assembly.” We adopt this construction.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 9,402,032 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,402,032
• Procon Analytics, LLC v. Spireon, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 22, 2019 · PGR2019-00051 · APJ John P Pinkerton · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–14 because the Petition did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Each element of the challenged claim must be found, either expressly or inherently, in the single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). While the elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the dispositive question is whether one skilled in the art would have reasonably understood or inferred from a prior art reference that every claim element is disclosed in that reference. Eli Lilly v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor–UCLA Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 17

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

    “A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (for an obviousness analysis, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”). Further, an assertion of obviousness “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, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a finding of a motivation to combine “must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 18

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

    “element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Each element of the challenged claim must be found, either expressly or inherently, in the single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). While the elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the dispositive question is whether one skilled in the art would have reasonably understood or inferred from a prior art reference that every claim element is disclosed in that reference. Eli Lilly v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor–UCLA Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “is conclusory and not supported by the evidence. Prelim. Resp. 32, 37–40. Petitioner’s argument relies on Dr. Wilhelm’s testimony, Jefferies, and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 28. Dr. Wilhelm testifies that “[c]onventional vehicle inventory management systems associate information with a particular identifier; the systems are agnostic as to whether that identifier represents a financial institution or dealer.” Ex. 1029 ¶ 73. Based on this testimony, Petitioner argues “it does not matter whether that identifier represents a bank or dealer.” Pet. 28. Petitioner then argues Jefferies teaches that a location device may be marked as “available/in inventory” to be associated with a vehicle. Id. Finally, Petitioner argues that, in view of these teachings, a person of ordinary skill “would have sought to manage various types of vehicle inventories for several types of owners, including dealers.” Id. As stated, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that the “ownership” requirement would have been obvious is conclusory and not supported by the evidence of record. Initially, we note that Dr. Wilhelm’s testimony concerning conventional vehicle inventory management systems is conclusory and unsupported by factual evidence. Thus, we give little, if any, weight to Dr. Wilhelm’s opinion testimony that such systems are “agnostic” to whether equipment identifiers are associated with lending institutions or auto dealers. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that “the Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations”). In any event, Dr. Wilhelm’s testimony adds nothing in this regard because, as discussed supra, Boling discloses equipment identifiers, such as UINs, are associated with the ID number of banks and auto dealers. See Ex. 1005, 6:22–26; 6:29–33.” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,089,598
• Bally Gaming, Inc., Dba Bally Technologies v. New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2019 · CBM2018-00006 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its final written decision that claims 1–12 are unpatentable under § 101.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply.”” slip op. at 2

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

    “on this particular issue is timely. Patent Owner has argued that “the institution should never have occurred” and that institution should have been denied outright. Id. However, our Decision on Institution (Paper 19, “Dec.”) was entered on June 22, 2018. Any request for rehearing of our determinations regarding the forum selection clause in that Decision should have been filed 14 days from the entry of that decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1). As we noted in the FWD, after institution of the covered business method patent review (“CBM review”), the parties did not present any additional evidence or arguments regarding the forum selection clause issue. FWD 8 (“In the post-institution briefing, neither party has added arguments or evidence to the record regarding this issue.”). Indeed, the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 28, “PO Resp.”) and Sur-Reply (Paper 39, “Sur.”) and Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 31, “Reply”) did not discuss forum selection. For completeness and clarity of the record, we reiterated our” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “be instructive, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, that decision has not been designated precedential. Moreover, taking into consideration the discussion by the panel in Global Tel*Link, we are not persuaded that our determination misapprehended or overlooked any arguments or evidence in” slip op. at 9

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner

    “the abstract idea. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that this is clear error or deprived Patent Owner of the opportunity to defend its position. Indeed, Patent Owner does not explain why the “rules for playing a bonus wagering game” is substantively different from “allowing bonus wagers in a wagering game,” or, more importantly, the basis for Patent Owner’s contention that this is a “fundamental change.” See Reh’g Req. 11.” slip op. at 11

  § 101 eligibility
  Patents in suitUS 7,451,987
• Lifescan Global Corporation v. PHC Holdings CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Nov 18, 2019 · IPR2019-01127 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2018). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence of record, we determine the information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny the Petition, and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition lacks requisite clarity and does not satisfy Petitioner’s burden of identifying “how the construed claim is unpatentable under the statutory ground on which petitioner challenges the claims, . . . [by] specify[ing] where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (requiring “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.”). According to our Trial Practice Guide, “parties should avoid submitting a repository of all the information that a judge could possibly consider, and instead focus on concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763 (Aug. 14, 2012). Here, Petitioner dedicates two pages to its discussion of how the challenged claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings of eight references. Pet. 68–69. Petitioner does not detail how each of the eight references are to be combined or which teachings from each reference are relied upon to suggest each limitation of the claims.13 Furthermore, neither Petitioner nor Petitioner’s declarants provide a reason that the skilled” slip op. at 29

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Figure 3 of Heller, however, does not show an “assembled sensor.” Instead, it provides an exploded view of a sensor, and does not show spacer 28 actually covering sensing layer 32. Thus, Petitioner and its declarants do not even rely on the actual figure in Heller, but instead rely on an imaginary adaptation (an unexploded version) of the figure. Furthermore, Dr. Smith and Mr. McGarraugh offer little more than a conclusory sentence that spacer 28 covers part of sensing layer 32. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 30; Ex. 1009 ¶ 29. Neither declarant offers any evidence to support the conclusion that spacer 28 in Heller actually covers sensing layer 32. Although Dr. Smith discusses possible benefits of having a spacer that covers part of a reagent layer, he directs us to no evidence sufficient to determine that spacer 28 in Heller actually does cover the reagent layer. Ex. 1008 ¶ 30. Such unsupported conclusions are entitled to little weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). In sum, Petitioner does not show that Figures 1 and 3 disclose the “spacer layer” of claim 1 with anticipatory specificity.” slip op. at 12

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

    “claim terms according to the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. Petitioner proposes constructions for four terms, “vertical,” “wettability index,” “air hole,” and “correcting unit.” Pet. 19–20. Patent Owner argues that the Board does not need to construe any claim terms at this time. Prelim. Resp. 5. After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,480,878
• Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited v. Biovie, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 13, 2019 · IPR2018-00974 · APJ Kristi L R Sawert · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: Robertson anticipates claims 1–3 and 5, and Fimiani combined with Robertson or Angeli renders claims 1–14 obvious; the motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the asserted grounds of unpatentability in view of the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and thus begin with the level of ordinary skill in the art. The ordinarily skilled artisan is a “legal construct” that “presumes that all prior art references in the field of the invention are available to this hypothetical skilled artisan.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998).” slip op. at 12

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

    “1. The preamble of claim 1 The preamble of claim 1 recites “[a] method for treating a patient diagnosed with ascites due to liver cirrhosis.” Ex. 1001, 8:25–26.6 5 See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018 to require a federal district court claim construction approach) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). 6 Before institution, Petitioner argued that the preamble is not limiting. See Pet. 11–12 (contending that the “preamble of claim 1 is merely a” slip op. at 15

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

    “1. Claim 1 We find that Robertson teaches explicitly each and every limitation of claim 1. As to the preamble, we agree with Petitioner that Robertson discloses “treating a patient diagnosed with ascites due to liver cirrhosis,” as interpreted above. Supra § III.C.1. Robertson teaches administering terlipressin to a patient having “Child-Pugh C cirrhosis due to previous alcohol consumption complicated by recurrent encephalopathy, diuretic-resistant ascites, and hepatocellular carcinoma.” Ex. 1004, 2125. We credit and rely on Dr. Gow’s unrebutted testimony that “Child-Pugh C cirrhosis is a form of liver cirrhosis” and, therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the 59-year-old man’s ascites was due to liver cirrhosis. Ex. 1002 ¶ 75. We also note that Patent Owner admits that Robertson’s patient was diagnosed with ascites due to cirrhosis and that “terlipressin was used to treat the patient’s HRS.” See PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 1004, 2125). Robertson also discloses that the patient’s serum creatinine concentration was reduced, thus indicating an improvement in renal function. Ex. 1004, 2125–2126; see also Ex. 1001, 1:60–67, 3:40–46, 7:20–40 (all identifying “a reduction in serum creatinine concentration” as an indicator for improved renal function). Accordingly, Robertson discloses “treating a patient diagnosed with ascites due to liver cirrhosis,” as claimed.” slip op. at 25

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

    “4. Conclusion as to obviousness over Fimiani and Robertson or Angeli In sum, we find that the combination of Fimiani and Robertson or Angeli teaches or suggests each and every element of claims 1–14. We find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Fimiani with Robertson or Angeli, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention. We also find that Patent Owner has failed to persuasively show secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Thus, after carefully considering the arguments and evidence, we determine that the record as a whole weighs in favor of a conclusion of obviousness, especially given the disclosures of the art of record in this case and strength of the obviousness case based on the first three Graham factors.” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 9,655,945 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,655,945
• Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2019 · IPR2018-00972 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable over Strub-based grounds; the Board grants the motion to amend, allowing substitute claims 15–28.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the “combined” limitation encompasses the multitrack embodiment of the ’307 patent. Both independent claims 1 and 12 recite that the “local audio data” is “combined with said remotely recorded audio data.” In view of Mr. DeFilippis’s testimony that the “combined” limitation allows “multiple individually recorded audio tracks to be combined into one or more multi-track audio files” (Ex. 2086 ¶ 18), we determine that claims 1 and 12 do not require the claimed “local audio data” and “remotely recorded audio data” to be derived from the same source. Furthermore, every occurrence of the term “combined” in the ’307 patent specification outside of the claims refers to the combination of audio into a multi-track file. See,e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:12–14 (“This accuracy allows multiple individually recorded audio tracks to be combined into one or more multi-track audio files electronically post-recording.”), 5:6–7 (“the multiple audio recordings are combined to create one single recording”), 16:40–44 (“[T]he local audio device of each performer . . . may be combined to create one or more multitrack audio files that are stored with master timestamps generated by the receiver/recorder's internal master timecode generator.”), 19:2–4 (“[A]ll of the individual audio files may be combined to provide one or more comprehensive audio files.”). Although we agree with Patent Owner that the ’307 patent specification describes an embodiment of a through the replacement of data, we are not persuaded that the recited “combined” limitation is limited to that embodiment, but rather also encompasses the multi-track embodiment of the ’307 patent. Id. at 4:15–18. Thus, we determine that the limitation “said local audio data is retrieved during or subsequent to said audio event and is combined with said remotely recorded audio data” does not require that the local and remote audio data originate from the same source because the ’307 patent specification contemplates a broader definition—one that includes the combination of local audio data and remotely recorded audio data to create a multi-track audio file. See Ex. 1001, 4:12–14, 5:6–7, 16:40–44, 19:2–4; Ex. 2086 ¶ 18. Based on the foregoing, we construe the “combining” limitation as broad enough to encompass combining local audio data and remotely recorded audio data, without a requirement that the local audio data and remotely recorded audio data are the same. In other words, we construe the “combining” limitation to encompass the disclosed multitrack embodiment in the ’307 patent specification, where separate audio tracks are combined to form a multitrack audio file. See Ex. 1001, 4:12–14, 5:6–7, 16:40–44, 19:2– 4.” slip op. at 9

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

    “and in a condition to be worn.” Pet. Reply 1–2 (quoting Ex. 2110, 1628). This definition is consistent with the plain meaning of “wearable,” and we find no credible evidence on the record that requires a narrower definition. Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Tinsman, provides a definition consistent with Patent Owner’s narrow definition. Rather than defining “wearable,” Mr. Tinsman explains that the term “bodypack” is “[s]omething relatively small and lightweight.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 2109, 41:18–22). Further, when describing “wearable” as “unobtrusive, easily hidden,” Mr. Tinsman clarifies this description as “[y]ou know, reasonable to carry around.” Ex. 2109, 47:20–22. We determine that no other express claim construction analysis of any” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “of the ’307 patent, would have “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two to five years working with audio and wireless communications systems.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 24). Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. DeFilippis, similarly opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two years of experience working with audio and wireless communications systems either in industry or in graduate school.” Ex. 2086 ¶ 13. We adopt Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art as it is agreed upon and consistent with the prior art of record. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). Specifically, we adopt that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the ’307 patent, would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of experience working with audio and wireless communications systems. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 24); Ex. 2086 ¶ 13. To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Petitioner identifies a first local audio device disclosed by Strub as “a small, lightweight, wearable recording unit.” Pet. 19 (quoting Ex. 1003, 4:29–31; citing Ex. 1003, 4:29–31, 14:59–15:11, 16:66–17:24, 38:65–39:11, 66:33– 51, 67:54–68:10, 72:10–19, Figs. 1, 8A–8C, 9A, 9B; Ex. 1011 ¶ 46). Petitioner further identifies the first local audio device as including position position data or biometric data, and time data. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003, 12:39–52, 35:53–61, 37:55–62, 63:41–60; Ex. 1011 ¶ 47). Finally, Petitioner identifies Strub’s disclosure of other recording devices to which local audio data is transmitted via transmitter 309 or wired connections. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003, 12:4–39, 66:7–25, Fig. 3). In summary, Strub discloses a local audio device that records local audio and transmits the local audio to other remote devices. Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 105–108, 8:50–53, 12:4–39, 66:7–25). Therefore, Petitioner has identified two devices in Strub—a local audio device and a remote audio device that receives the transmitted audio. Ex. 1003, 12:4–39, 66:7–25, Fig. 3. Petitioner has also identified the claimed local audio as the audio that is stored by a local audio device and transmitted to a remote audio device. Id. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s argument that Strub fails to disclose “that the same local audio is stored at both the wearable local audio device as local audio data and the remote receiver/recorder as remotely recorded audio data and that the local audio data is combined with the remotely recorded audio data” is not persuasive because it is inconsistent with our claim construction discussed above. See Section II.B.1; PO Resp. 32. We do not construe the limitation “said local audio data may be retrieved after said locally recording and combined with said remotely recorded audio data” to require that the local audio data and remotely recorded audio data be the same data. Id. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that Strub discloses the disputed element because Strub discloses local audio devices transmitting recordings to other recording units and the recording units timestamping the recorded audio and synchronizing, i.e., combining, processing. Ex. 1003, 13:50–67. Patent Owner further argues that Strub does not disclose a local audio device “wearable by a creator of said locally generated audio.” PO Resp. 34–35. Patent Owner argues that Strub’s device is not “small, lightweight, unobtrusive, easily hidden, not visible, and designed to be worn on the body of a creator of audio (i.e., performer)” based on its claim construction. Id. at 34; see Section II.B.2. Mr. DeFilippis, Patent Owner’s expert, opines that Strub’s system “would require a computer that could compare content from multiple mpeg sources in real time and multiplex the results to a recording,” and the “hardware and software to do this could not be incorporated into a back pack, let alone a bodypack.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 2086 ¶ 43).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,336,307 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,336,307
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Keynetik, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · IPR2018-00985 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22 and 23 are unpatentable as obvious over Noguera and Liberty; the Board did not reach anticipation by Liberty.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “the scope of the sleep command. As such, we agree with Petitioner that “under the [broadest reasonable interpretation] standard, the claim language merely recites that the sleep command temporarily deactivates the motion input algorithm from translating sensed movement into a command for a defined period of time.” See Reply 6. 2. Scope of “After the Command Is Executed” Claim 22 recites, in relevant part, sending the sleep command “after the command is executed.” According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this to require “a command within the step motion algorithm that is sent after the executed motion input algorithm command.” PO Resp. 29. Thus, Patent Owner argues that the executed command and sleep command must have a logical association with each other. Id. “In other words, the algorithmic steps must be part of the same algorithm – not merely disassociated, independent functions that can occur within the same device.” Id. at 32. Petitioner points out that the text of the ’146 patent merely describes the sleep command as “[f]ollowing execution of the command” and “does not identify any logical association or conditioning between the ‘sleep command’ and the ‘command [that] is executed.’” Reply 8–9 (quoting Ex. 1001, 14:22–24). We agree with Petitioner that the claim term “after” indicates a temporal relationship between the executed command and the sleep command that requires the executed command to occur and then at some point later in time the sleep command is issued. The claims provide no limit as to intervening acts that could occur between the executed command and the sending of the sleep command. The claims also do not describe any further relationship between the executed command and the sleep command.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the types of problems encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers in the field. Id. In addition, the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, it is easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”). In the Institution Decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art as a person “familiar with the various motion-sensing technologies by way of experience and/or schooling. That person would likely have earned a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or another related field, and have at least two years of experience with motion-sensing technologies. More education can substitute for practical experience and vice versa.” Dec. 7; see PO Resp. 16 (“Patent Owner and its expert, Dr. Mohapatra, agree with the Board’s findings concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art.”). Based on the full record, including the testimony of Dr. Abowd, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we maintain our previously adopted description of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 11

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

    “to be solved by the ’146 patent is not strictly focused on the removal of intentional movement. The specification also discusses a need for a motion sensor system and method of calculation “that does not require tracking of the device orientation to filter out the gravity and other motion interference” and it also addresses the desire to “minimize the numerical calculations, thus reducing required processing power.” Ex. 1001, 2:47–53. Thus, the problem to be solved is not singularly focused on removal of intentional movement. Regardless, Petitioner correctly argues that the cited art in an obviousness ground need not be directed to the same problem that the inventor was trying to solve. See Reply 20–21. The Supreme Court stated that “[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Therefore, whether the cited references are directed to the same problem that the inventor was trying to solve is not conclusive concerning the obviousness analysis. Patent Owner also contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would not be motivated to combine the references because the combination of the Noguera ‘delay period’ with the Liberty ‘switch’ to ‘fine mode clicking’ would be, at best, redundant.” PO Resp. 61. For example, Patent Owner asserts that “if a button actuation caused ‘undesirable movement of the device,’ Noguera alone would ‘remove unintentional movement’ because it always operates on a ‘delay period.’” Id. at 62 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 186). Petitioner contends that this is a misstatement of the proposed combination because “Noguera’s delay period and Liberty’s classifier that switches to fine mode clicking are not the same . . . . For example, Noguera’s delay periods do not take into account execution of commands, much less commands relating to fine user interactions with Noguera’s device.” Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1006, FIGS. 3–4, 5:52–6:50). Petitioner points out that “the combined Noguera-Liberty system (unlike Noguera alone) links the delay periods to the periods directly following a command.” Id. at 22. We agree with Petitioner’s contention that this combination “would have advantageously removed unintentional motion data during fine user interactions with device 10 that could have resulted in unwanted device inputs (e.g., unwanted cursor movement).” Id. (quoting Pet. 68). This is true because Noguera operates on a system of continuous averaging and the addition of Liberty would allow for the periods to be timed based on the execution of command and Liberty provides for the filtering out of certain unwanted data which will allow more precision that the averaging scheme used in Noguera. We are persuaded that removing some undesirable movement would have allowed for more accurate calculations/commands because it would have improved the precision of the underlying data for the commands. As such, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently a rationale to combine the teachings of Noguera and Liberty.” slip op. at 25

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

    “been improved in light of the teachings of Liberty. Pet. 68. Specifically, Noguera’s delay period (sleep period) is used to filter out certain movement. Id. at 62. According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have improved that filtering with Liberty’s fine and coarse clicking techniques. Id. at 68. Liberty’s coarse mode is for large movements and the fine mode is for small carefully aligned movements. Ex. 1005, 17:12–18. “For fine mode clicking, the above-described processing technique operates to accurately remove unintentional motion data from the combined data output stream from the motion sensor(s) in the handheld device.” Id. at 17:20–24. “When a button press is detected by the hand held device, the output pointer movement from 916 is suppressed until either the distance exceeds a distance threshold or the amount of elapsed time exceeds a time threshold.” Id. at 16:34–38. Petitioner argues that Liberty teaches “rever[ting] to a prior state . . . ‘by deleting data samples taken from the motion sensor(s) during/after’ the user action. As such, the ‘errant movement’ that occurred during the user action is ‘ignored and ‘erased.’” Pet. 64 (quoting Ex. 1005, 16:65–17:2) (internal citations omitted). Additionally, Liberty “provide[s] a classifier to switch between the [coarse and fine] techniques.” Id. at 18:21– 22. Petitioner relies on Liberty’s teaching of switching to fine clicking mode from coarse clicking mode based on a classifier that indicates the velocity of the handheld device has slowed from a velocity indicative of coarse clicking mode to a velocity more appropriate for clicking a small target. Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 129–130; Ex. 1005, 17:12–16, 18:25–34). Petitioner contends that “the instruction to switch to the first technique (‘sleep command’) is sent only after movement of the 3D pointing device is detected and translated into a command to position the cursor over a small target (‘the command is executed’) and then stopped.” Pet. 42–43. Thus, the combination provides a classifier (sleep command) to begin Noguera’s delay period (sleep state) after the execution of a command. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and that Petitioner has demonstrated that this disputed limitation would have been understood from the combined teachings of Liberty and Noguera.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,966,146 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,966,146

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.