- Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Zentian LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2023-01192 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 46–51, 53, 54, 58, 59, 64, and 67 unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the specified combinations of Thelen, Bailey, Chen, and additional references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We find Apple’s arguments persuasive notwithstanding Zentian’s arguments to the contrary. We credit Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that consolidating the overlapping data within similar lexical models (such as “sports” models like football or baseball) and storing the consolidated data in a shared memory that multiple processors may access in parallel would have resulted in memory and processing efficiency. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–84. This would have been an improvement over Thelen, where each processor has access to only one, distinct lexical model at a time and there is no shared memory in which multiple processors can access the same consolidated models data in parallel. See Ex. 1030, 7:30–34.11” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Because a person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person, we agree with Apple that Dr. Anderson’s inability to implement a particular computer vision application within the constraints of a particular Texas Instruments parallel-processing environment does not mean that more general knowledge and skill in parallel processing would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill. To the contrary, the evidence of record suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention, who, for example, had a master’s degree and two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, would have also had knowledge and experience with parallel processing.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Apple states that it “applies the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms,” and does not propose any explicit constructions. See Pet. 7. Likewise, Zentian does not propose any explicit constructions. See PO Resp. We do not find it necessary to explicitly construe any terms for this decision. To the extent that we need to interpret claim language, we address that language below in the context of the prior art. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“would not have been dissuaded from the memory-efficiency benefits of modifying Thelen–Bailey by grouping processors and memory into clusters because memory collisions would have allegedly made recognition slower. Although memory collisions may have been an issue for the ordinarily skilled artisan to consider, Apple has persuasively shown that there are other motivating considerations, such as the known flexibility12 and scalability of distributed processing systems in general, decreased cost because off-the-shelf components may be used, and the added efficiency of data sharing among related sub-context models. See Pet. 40–45. Apple persuasively shows, and we find Mr. Schmandt’s supporting testimony credible, that a skilled artisan would have expected to be able to minimize the effect of memory collisions based on Chen’s teachings and the background knowledge in the art. See Pet. 14–19. For the same reasons, we do not find credible Dr. Anderson’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 44–46)” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 7,587,319 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,587,319 - Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Zentian LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00033 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 46–51, 53, 54, 58, 59, 64, and 67 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the listed combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Because a person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person, we agree with Apple that Dr. Anderson’s inability to implement a particular computer vision application within the constraints of a particular Texas Instruments parallel-processing environment does not mean that more general knowledge and skill in parallel processing would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill. To the contrary, the evidence of record suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention, who, for example, had a master’s degree and two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, would have also had knowledge and experience with parallel processing.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We find Apple’s arguments persuasive notwithstanding Zentian’s arguments to the contrary. We credit Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that consolidating the overlapping data within similar lexical models (such as “sports” models like football or baseball) and storing the consolidated data in a shared memory that multiple processors may access in parallel would have resulted in memory and processing efficiency. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–84. This would have been an improvement over Thelen, where each processor has access to only one, distinct lexical model at a time and there is no shared memory in which multiple processors can access the same consolidated models data in parallel. See Ex. 1030, 7:30–34.11” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Apple states that it “applies the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms,” and does not propose any explicit constructions. See Pet. 7. Likewise, Zentian does not propose any explicit constructions. See PO Resp. We do not find it necessary to explicitly construe any terms for this decision. To the extent that we need to interpret claim language, we address that language below in the context of the prior art. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find Apple’s arguments persuasive notwithstanding Zentian’s arguments to the contrary. We credit Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that consolidating the overlapping data within similar lexical models (such as “sports” models like football or baseball) and storing the consolidated data in a shared memory that multiple processors may access in parallel would have resulted in memory and processing efficiency. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–84. This would have been an improvement over Thelen, where each processor has access to only one, distinct lexical model at a time and there is no shared memory in which multiple processors can access the same consolidated models data in parallel. See Ex. 1030, 7:30–34.11 11 The dissent characterizes Thelen’s common storage 340 as a shared memory. However, each of Thelen’s recognizers only has access (indirectly The evidence of record suggests that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been dissuaded from the memory-efficiency benefits of modifying Thelen–Bailey by grouping processors and memory into clusters because memory collisions would have allegedly made recognition slower. Although memory collisions may have been an issue for the ordinarily skilled artisan to consider, Apple has persuasively shown that there are other motivating considerations, such as the known flexibility12 and scalability of distributed processing systems in general, decreased cost because off-the-shelf components may be used, and the added efficiency of data sharing among related sub-context models. See Pet. 40–45.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 7,587,319 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,587,319 - Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Zentian LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2023-01194 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–5 over their listed combinations of Jiang, Smyth, Nguyen, Boike, or Baumgartner, and claim 6 over Jiang, Smyth, Nguyen, Boike, and Baumgartner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a master’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field,” and would have had “at least two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields with at least four years of experience in the field of speech recognition.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Patent Owner indicates that it does not “dispute the Petition’s proposed level of skill for a person of skill in the art,” but also emphasizes that such artisans who possess “ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition, [would] not [be] one of extraordinary creativity.” PO Resp. 4. We continue to determine, as we did in the Institution Decision, that Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Inst. Dec. 7; Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 continue to adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“of that claim against the prior art.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The recitation of claim 1 that FVs are extracted and/or derived means that FVs may not only be extracted from the digital audio stream, thus obtaining a FV based on the scale of the FV (“representing a point in an N-dimensional space,” depending on the value of N (Ex. 1001 13:19–23)). Such FVs, per claim 1, may also be representations of the digital audio stream, i.e., quantities derived therefrom. Any such derived quantities would perhaps even be lossy. See Ex. 1001, 13:13–18. As such, FVs, according to independent claim 1, are not limited to pure feature vectors, which are quantities extracted from the digital audio stream, but also include quantities derived from the stream, which are representations” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of obviousness or nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (requiring the adjudicator to provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Furthermore, Petitioner does not satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements,” but “must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“above, we determine that Jiang uses codewords, which are representative feature vectors within the scope of claim 1, and those codewords are used to calculate distances. The Petition discusses a motivation to modify Jiang to use Smyth’s DSP device to perform distance calculations (Pet. 40-41), but it does so in the context of “[t]o the extent Patent Owner argues that Jiang does not teach calculating distances.” Id. at 40. Given that we determine that Jiang does teach performing distancing calculations that meet the claim limitations, Patent Owner’s contention is not persuasive. Rather, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s motivation for using Smyth’s dedicated DSP to perform Jiang’s distance calculations, namely, for the benefit of allowing for segmentation of higher-load processing, resulting in a faster, more efficient, ¶¶ 176–180; Ex. 1004, 6:39–42). We agree with Mr. Schmandt, that “[i]t would have been obvious to modify Jiang’s tree search engine, which performs both distance calculation and word determination, to include Smyth’s distinct processors for performing each respective functionality,” because such a modification “results in a more efficient, faster, and more accurate speech recognition process by segmenting higher-load processing tasks.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 180 (citing Ex. 1012, 19, Ex. 1005, 5:49–53, 6:5–8, 6:43–51; Ex. 1004, 4:60–5:3). Additionally, Patent Owner argues that using Smyth’s probability calculation in the system of Jiang will dramatically increase the computation burden of the calculations, and this is contrary to the purpose of Jiang to reduce computational requirements, as evinced by the use of lossy codewords. PO Resp. 16–19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54–59). Petitioner asserts, with respect to this latter argument, that “the Board need not consider this argument if the Board determines that Jiang teaches limitation 1(g).” Pet. Reply 14. We agree with Petitioner. Given the discussion with respect to limitation 1(g) above, and that Jiang is sufficient to teach or suggest element 1(g), we need not further consider the combination of Smyth and Jiang in the claimed calculation of distances. Therefore, we determine that the motivation proffered by the Petition is sufficient to combine the teachings of Jiang and Smyth, as disclosed in the Petition.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,062,377 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,062,377 - Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Zentian LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00035 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–6 under the listed combinations of Jiang, Smyth, and the additional references for dependent claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“of that claim against the prior art.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The recitation of claim 1 that FVs are extracted and/or derived means that FVs may not only be extracted from the digital audio stream, thus obtaining a FV based on the scale of the FV (“representing a point in an N-dimensional space,” depending on the value of N (Ex. 1001 13:19–23)). Such FVs, per claim 1, may also be representations of the digital audio stream, i.e., quantities derived therefrom. Any such derived quantities would perhaps even be lossy. See Ex. 1001, 13:13–18. As such, FVs, according to independent claim 1, are not limited to pure feature vectors, which are quantities extracted from the digital audio stream, but also include quantities derived from the stream, which are representations 8). Given such a definition, vector quantization, which reduces the plurality of quantities in a FV to a single codeword that is associated with a codebook entry, representing multiple values, would also comprise “derived” representations of the “quantities from said digital audio stream” as recited in the claim. Although Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Anderson, provides that “[c]odewords are the result of vector quantization (VQ) of the original feature vectors, and are thus not the feature vectors themselves” (Ex. 2020 ¶ 39), that comports with one alternative of what encompasses a FV as recited in claim 1, namely, “extracted quantities,” but not the more expansive definition that includes “derived quantities” provided in independent claim 1. The vector quantization of a feature vector results in a vector quantized feature vector, or codeword, that still represents a multitude of values “derived . . . from said digital audio stream,” but is more computationally expedient. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 140–141. We agree with Dr. Anderson that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that calculating distances from a feature vector comprising extracted quantities was distinct from computing probabilities from a codeword (Ex. 2020 ¶ 43), but that, again, does not take into consideration the broader definition of “feature vector” confirmed by the claims. Rather, we agree with Petitioner and Mr. Schmandt, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a codeword is a representative feature vector. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 140–141). A codeword, or representative feature vector, “comprises a plurality of . . . derived,” or vector quantized, “quantities from said digital audio stream” within the meaning of claim 1. claim 1, comprises a plurality of extracted qualities from the digital audio stream during the defined audio time frame, and/or derived quantities that are representative of the digital audio stream during the defined audio time frame, such as the derived values of a codeword.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Mr. Schmandt’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a master’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field,” and would have had “at least two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields with at least four years of experience in the field of speech recognition.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Patent Owner indicates that it does not “dispute the Petition’s proposed level of skill for a person of skill in the art,” but also emphasizes that such artisans who possess “ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition, [would] not [be] one of extraordinary creativity.” PO Resp. 4. We continue to determine, as we did in the Institution Decision, that Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Inst. Dec. 7; Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 continue to adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. As discussed above, we determine that Jiang uses codewords, which are representative feature vectors within the scope of claim 1, and those codewords are used to calculate distances. The Petition discusses a motivation to modify Jiang to use Smyth’s DSP device to perform distance calculations (Pet. 40-41), but it does so in the context of “[t]o the extent Patent Owner argues that Jiang does not teach calculating distances.” Id. at 40. Given that we determine that Jiang does teach performing distancing calculations that meet the claim limitations, Patent Owner’s contention is not persuasive. Rather, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s motivation for using Smyth’s dedicated DSP to perform Jiang’s distance calculations, namely, for the benefit of allowing for segmentation of higher-load processing, resulting in a faster, more efficient, ¶¶ 176–180; Ex. 1004, 6:39–42). We agree with Mr. Schmandt, that “[i]t would have been obvious to modify Jiang’s tree search engine, which performs both distance calculation and word determination, to include Smyth’s distinct processors for performing each respective functionality,” because such a modification “results in a more efficient, faster, and more accurate speech recognition process by segmenting higher-load processing tasks.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 180 (citing Ex. 1012, 19, Ex. 1005, 5:49–53, 6:5–8, 6:43–51; Ex. 1004, 4:60–5:3). Additionally, Patent Owner argues that using Smyth’s probability calculation in the system of Jiang will dramatically increase the computation burden of the calculations, and this is contrary to the purpose of Jiang to reduce computational requirements, as evinced by the use of lossy codewords. PO Resp. 16–19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54–59). Petitioner asserts, with respect to this latter argument, that “the Board need not consider this argument if the Board determines that Jiang teaches limitation 1(g).” Pet. Reply 14. We agree with Petitioner. Given the discussion with respect to limitation 1(g) above, and that Jiang is sufficient to teach or suggest element 1(g), we need not further consider the combination of Smyth and Jiang in the claimed calculation of distances. Therefore, we determine that the motivation proffered by the Petition is sufficient to combine the teachings of Jiang and Smyth, as disclosed in the Petition.” slip op. at 30
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Weighing the evidence proffered by both parties, we are not persuaded that Jiang discloses feedback-based pruning. Petitioner’s declarant disputes that Jiang teaches feedback-based pruning (Ex. 2016, 18:16–19:14), and Jiang itself, within its entire discussion of pruning (Ex. 1004, 8:52–64, 10:65–11:15), never discusses feedback of pruned results. We are left with Patent Owner’s assertions that such feedback-based pruning is implicitly taught by Jiang, and we determine that to be insufficient to require a disclosure that is not explicit. We acknowledge that Patent Owner’s declarant (Ex. 2020 ¶ 64–76) provides testimony, based on the teachings of Jiang and contemporaneous teachings in the art, that Jiang’s pruning requires feedback from the search stage to the calculation stage, but we are not persuaded that Jiang must operate with such feedback. We are also persuaded by Petitioner’s point that Jiang computes a score for each phoneme branch considered in the tree, that contradicts Patent Owner’s theory that scores are computed for only active, non-pruned phoneme Lastly, Patent Owner seems to rely, at least partially, that “Jiang never states it does not use feedback-based pruning” (PO Sur-reply 25), but an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As such, given that we are not persuaded that Jiang must employ feedback-based pruning, we are not persuaded that the methods of Nguyen cannot be used in the combination of Jiang and Smyth, as proffered by the Petition with respect to claims 2 and 3. In addition, we agree with Petitioner that Jiang discloses that “a pruning technique can be used,” and find that Jiang’s pruning technique is optional. Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1004, 8:52–64. Although Patent Owner contends that Mr. Schmandt includes Jiang’s pruning as part of his combination theory (PO Resp. 20–22), we agree with Petitioner that the Petition does not rely on Jiang’s pruning technique in mapping Jiang’s process to the search stage of independent claim 1. Pet. Reply 16; see Pet. 44–61. We find that the Petition does not rely on the portions of Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that consider Jiang’s pruning. Further, even under Mr. Schmandt’s combination theory, Mr. Schmandt testifies that the pruning “threshold value can be set at any desired level, based primarily on desired memory and computational savings, and a desired error rate increase caused by memory and computational savings.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 174 (quoting Ex. 1004, 2:25–46). Mr. Schmandt testifies that “if the speech recognition system is programmed to carry more hypotheses forward in the tree (because a relatively lower threshold value is set), the system has a higher recognition accuracy.” Id. ¶ 177. Mr. Schmandt testifies that modifying Jiang’s tree search engine 74 to comprise two digital signal processors, where a first processor performs distance calculations and the second performs other speech recognition tasks, yields the benefit of given that using two digital signal processors allows the first processor to increase accuracy by reducing the pruning threshold, and given that the pruning threshold can be set to any desired level based on a desired error rate, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have set the pruning threshold to zero for the benefit of increasing recognition accuracy and lowering the error rate as much as possible. With the pruning threshold set to zero, the combination does not perform pruning, even under Mr. Schmandt’s combination theory.” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 10,062,377 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,062,377 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationInstitutedPTAB · May 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00105 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–13 and 16 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Fells.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“According to our precedent, “if the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under [Becton, Dickinson] factors (e) and (f).” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10; see also Keysight Techs., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2022-01421, Paper 14 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2023) (vacating a Board decision denying institution where the examiner considered references but never provided any discussion, analysis, or other findings, and the petition provided a sufficient argument on the merits, which the examiner misapprehended or overlooked). Here, in evaluating Becton, Dickinson factor (c), we determine that the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to Fells and Cook is not well developed and neither reference was the basis for a rejection. We also determine, for reasons we discuss more fully below, that InductEV has shown that the Examiner materially erred by overlooking at least the teachings of Fell as applied to claim 1 (Becton, Dickinson factor (e)), and that the Petition presents additional evidence and facts, including testimony by Dr. Allen, that warrant reconsideration of Fells (Becton, Dickinson factor (f)). See infra Section IV.C. Thus, we decline to deny institution discretionarily under § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“9. Conclusion as to claim 1. For the above reasons, we determine that InductEV has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Fells discloses or teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the features described in Fells in the manner recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that InductEV is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Fells.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“9. Conclusion as to claim 1. For the above reasons, we determine that InductEV has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Fells discloses or teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the features described in Fells in the manner recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that InductEV is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Fells.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party argues that we should construe any particular claim terms. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–63); Prelim. Resp. 5–6. We agree that, for this decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We discuss the claim terms below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,027,184 - PTAB · May 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00094 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6 and all asserted grounds, finding a compelling and reasonably likely obviousness challenge to claim 1 over Kobayashi and Hshieh.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), “at the filing date of the ’409 [p]atent[,] would have a master’s degree in electrical engineering, and at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design and manufacturing.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. 6 Hshieh et al., US 5,763,914, issued June 9, 1998. Ex. 1006 (“Hshieh”). We adopt Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art, which is supported by declaration testimony and consistent with the ’409 patent and prior art of record. See Ex. 1001, 1:6–3:8 (describing the invention and related art in terms of integrated circuit design and fabrication).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Based on the preliminary arguments and evidence, we disagree with Petitioner’s proposed construction requiring the corners to be rounded via a particular process because it improperly imports a process of manufacture from the Specification into apparatus claims. See Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 799 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Vanguard Prods. Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 234 F.3d 1370, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Generally, ‘[a] novel product that meets the criteria of patentability is not limited to the process by which it was made.’”)). We also preliminarily disagree with Petitioner’s assessment of the prosecution history, i.e., that the claims were amended to distinguish the claimed rounded corners from 7 Pfirsch et al., US 6,541,818, issued April 1, 2003. Ex. 1011. Pfirsch’s rounded corners. Indeed, both the Examiner found and Patent Owner admitted that Pfirsch has the recited “rounded corner[s].” See Ex. 1002, 237, 302. Patent Owner appears, at this stage, to be correct that the claims were amended to include a “circular” contact to distinguish over Pfirsch’s square contact. See id. at 295, 302.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“We disagree at this stage. Petitioner’s rationale for combining Kobayashi with Hshieh is not solely based on Hshieh’s top view rounding being well known. Rather, Petitioner’s rationale is clearly based on express teachings in Hshieh about the benefits of top view rounding. See Pet. 54, 59 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:3–17, Figs. 6A–8B; Ex. 1003 ¶ 137); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122, 133. For example, Petitioner and its declarant refer to Hshieh’s teaching at column 5, lines 3–17, which states, “[i]n order to prevent the corner vulnerability where punch through weak points may be formed at the sharp corners due to a three-dimension diffusion effect . . . , the sharp corners of the polysilicon openings can be either blunted or rounded.” See Pet. 59; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 137. Accordingly, at this stage, we find that Petitioner has sufficiently articulated a motivation to combine the top view rounding of Hshieh with Kobayashi.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundInstituted
“Next, Patent Owner argues that Hshieh teaches non-orthogonal parallelogram-shaped cells to increase cell packing density and “specifically identifies square cell configurations as having disadvantageous packing densities.” Prelim. Resp. 23. Patent Owner argues that Hshieh therefore “plainly teach[es] away from combining Hshieh with Kobayashi in the manner claimed.” Id. We do not agree at this stage. Although Hshieh teaches that non- orthogonal cells are preferable over square cells, Patent Owner has not pointed out anything in Hshieh that would “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” modifying Kobayashi’s square cells to have rounded corners. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away . . . if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention . . . .”). Thus, we find nothing in the preliminary record to suggest that Hshieh teaches away from the combination.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,812,409 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationInstitutedPTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00140 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 4–10, 12–16, 18, and 19 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we may institute an inter partes review when “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); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Applying that standard, we institute an inter partes review of all the challenged claims of the ’654 patent for the reasons explained below. This is a preliminary decision, and we will base our final written decision on the full trial record.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“First, although InductEV disagrees that the word antenna would exclude coils found within a transformer-like structure, InductEV does not appear to dispute WiTricity’s proposed IEEE definition of antenna as “a device that radiates and/or receives radio waves.” See Prelim. Reply 2–3. We preliminary adopt that construction. But we agree with InductEV that nothing in this construction would exclude a coil found within a transformerlike structure, so long as it either transmits or receives radio waves. We also note that, although WiTricity relies on the generation of near-field flux lines into free space as a way to distinguish an antenna from a transformer, WiTricity does not point to any testimonial or other evidence that a transformer coil does not generate near-field flux lines into free space. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 8–16; Ex. 2001, 20–37. Second, we agree with InductEV that the preliminary evidence does not suggest (and WiTricity does not explicitly argue) that the terms transmitting antenna or receiving antenna depart from the ordinary and customary meanings of those terms. Pet. 2. The ’654 patent does refer to a “coupling-mode region” consisting of the area around antennas 114 and 118 of Figure 1 in which “near-field coupling may occur.” Ex. 1001, 2:38–40; see supra Section II.A. But this is the region in which “efficient energy transfer occurs by coupling a large portion of the energy in the near-field of the transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna rather than propagating most of the energy in an electromagnetic wave to the far field”—not a defining characteristic of either the transmitting or receiving antenna. See Ex. 1001, 2:31–38. Thus, for this decision, we preliminarily adopt InductEV’s proposed construction of transmitting antenna as “an antenna that transmits energy” and the proposed construction of receiving antenna as “an antenna that receives energy.” Prelim. Reply 1. This appears to be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms and their usage in the ’654 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:26–40. As this is a preliminary construction solely for this decision, the parties may continue to offer evidence and arguments as to these or other claim terms at trial. We do not need to construe any of the other terms explicitly for this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Alternatively, if WiTricity is correct that alignment based on the degree of coupling is not explicitly applicable to the “parked” embodiment, the preliminary evidence suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute such alignment for alignment based on the output of the sensors that Ross discloses, such as optical sensors, and that this would have predictably led to aligning the two coils regardless of whether the vehicle is parked temporarily on a roadway or parked in a loading/unloading zone. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 246–248 (opining that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that one may obtain the “optimum lateral position” of the vehicle coil by sensing the degree of coupling “[i]nstead of” using sensors (quoting Ex. 1007, 13:21))); KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”); Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[I]f there’s a known technique to address a known problem using ‘prior art elements according to their established functions,’ then there is a motivation to combine.” (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021))). We also find persuasive, on the present record, InductEV’s argument that claim 13 does not require control based on the degree of inductive coupling while the receiving antenna is being guided into the recited “first alignment position.” See Prelim. Reply 5. Whereas limitation 13[b] requires such control after the receiving antenna is already in the “first alignment position” (e.g., during fine alignment while Ross’s vehicle is parked in the loading/unloading zone), there is no such requirement in limitation 13[a] while the receiving antenna is being moved to the “first alignment position” (e.g., while Ross’s vehicle leaves the electrified roadway and parks in the loading/unloading zone).” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,466,654 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2023-01268 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted Paasonen and Hotelling grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION Because we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, we institute inter partes review as to all challenged claims and grounds presented in the Petition. At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of any of these challenged claims. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1–10 of the ’631 patent to determine whether:” slip op. at 48
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because the factors identified in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), weigh in favor of denying institution in view of the district court litigation. Prelim. Resp. 27–47. A USPTO Memorandum from Director Vidal titled Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf (“Interim Procedure”) provides that “the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv . . . where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure 9. Petitioner has submitted such a stipulation. Ex. 1300; Paper 24, 8. Thus, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner acknowledges that it and Patent Owner have proposed constructions in the district court litigation, but contends that “the Board need not construe these terms because the prior art discloses or renders obvious embodiments within the indisputable scope of the claims under the parties’ and any reasonable interpretations.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner similarly points to the proposed constructions in the district court litigation but also does not propose any claim construction in its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. 24–25. At this time, we determine that no terms of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Here, Petitioner makes a sufficient showing that “Paasonen and Nakano are in the same field as the ’631 [patent]—which includes mobile interfaces,” wherein “Paasonen discloses sequentially displaying the four most-recently active applications in the application switcher panel,” and “Nakano’s teachings permit a user to browse additional applications.” Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:32–51; Ex. 1005, 1:6–9, 3:41–4:25; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 1, 6, 14–15; Ex. 1003 ¶ 119). On this present record, we are sufficiently persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, supported by the testimony of Dr. Madisetti, that a POSITA would have been motivated “to modify Paasonen’s application switcher panel with Nakano’s scrolling teachings in order to more easily access recently-active applications by scrolling through more than four icons.” Id. at 45; Ex. 1003 ¶ 120. Having reviewed all of Petitioner’s assertions, as well as the supporting evidence, we determine on this record that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing Paasonen in combination with Nakano discloses “in response to a first command for sequentially displaying icons, performing sequential display of icons such that an icon corresponding to the second work process is displayed,” “the icon corresponding to the second work process is displayed in the designated portion of the display,” as recited in claim 1. Further, having reviewed all of Petitioner’s assertions and the supporting evidence, we determine on this record that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing of motivation to combine Paasonen and Nakano. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the evidence and arguments presented show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that the subject matter of claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Paasonen and Nakano.” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,575,631 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2023-01267 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Wager and TS25.321.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“A Memorandum from Director Vidal titled Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (USPTO June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)11 provides that “the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv . . . where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure 9. LG has submitted such a stipulation. Prelim. Reply 1; Ex. 1300. Thus, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution under § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Later, when considering what would ultimately become claim 1 of the ’809 patent, the Examiner did not explicitly address whether the ’985 provisional application supported the applicant’s newly introduced reference to two distinct buffers (i.e., a E-DCH buffer and a HARQ buffer). See Ex. 1002, 152–59, 365–83; see also Pet. 15 (“While Wager was discussed during the ’104’s prosecution . . . , it was not substantively addressed for the ’809; . . . the Claims recite, e.g., ‘HARQ buffer’ elements that are not in the ’104’s claims.” (bolding omitted)). For reasons we discuss more fully below, see infra Section IV.C, we determine that the Examiner erred by failing to revisit, in light of the added reference to a HARQ buffer, whether the ’985 provisional application supported the claims that issued in the ’809 patent. This error was material to the patentability of the challenged claims because the applicant’s arguments responding to the Examiner’s Wager rejections depend on Wager not being prior art. See Ex. 1027, 387–88, 560–62, 754; see also Pet. 15–16 (“The Examiner . . . erred by not rejecting the ’809 Claims over Wager.”). Because we determine, under the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, that the Examiner erred in a manner material to patentability of the challenged claims, we need not address the first part of the Advanced Bionic framework. Thus, we decline to deny institution discretionarily under § 325(d).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“LG argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical and computer engineering, computer science, or the equivalent thereof, and . . . two years of experience with networking and wireless communications systems,” and that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–54). Pantech does not presently contest this. See Prelim. Resp. LG’s proposed articulation is uncontested, supported by testimonial evidence, and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’809 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:25–38. Thus, we adopt the above articulation of the level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party argues that we should construe any particular claim terms, but the parties agree that the claim preambles of independent claims 1 and 6 are limiting. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55–57); Prelim. Resp. 17. We agree that, for our decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We discuss the claim terms below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,313,809 - PTAB · Apr 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01270 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that LG would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute review. 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 information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“A Memorandum from Director Vidal titled Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District 4 US 20030076783 A1, filed Oct. 19, 2001, published Apr. 24, 2003 (Ex. 1009). 5 US 2004/0223507 A1, filed May 7, 2003, published Nov. 11, 2004 (Ex. 1006). 6 US 6,359,877 B1, filed July 21, 1998, issued Mar. 19, 2002 (Ex. 1008). Court Litigation (USPTO June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)7 provides that “the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv . . . where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim Procedure 9. Petitioner has submitted such a stipulation. Ex. 1300; Paper 24 at 1. Thus, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“framework is met because Kuchibhotla and Liu were cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and because “the relevant teachings of Lucent are substantively similar to those of Khan (Ex. 1010).” Prelim. Resp. 28–29. We agree with Patent Owner that the citation of Kuchibhotla and Liu satisfies the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7–8 (“Previously presented art includes art made of record by the Examiner, and art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent.”); see also Ex. 1002, 34 (IDS listing Kuchibhotla), 36 (IDS listing Liu); Paper 24 at 2–3 (Petitioner’s acknowledgement that Kuchibhotla and Liu were cited). In the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. The Examiner did not substantively discuss Kuchibhotla and Liu and, therefore, factor (c) (the extent to which the asserted references were evaluated during prosecution, including whether a rejection rested on any reference) weighs against denying institution. Furthermore, as explained below in § II.F.1, we agree, on this record, with Petitioner’s contentions as to disputed limitation 1.e and, therefore, determine that factor (f) (the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the asserted references or arguments) weighs against denying institution.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, computer science, or the equivalent thereof, and at least two years of experience with wireless communication systems.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–41). Petitioner also contends that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–41). Patent Owner does not comment on the level of ordinary skill in the Preliminary Response. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’247 patent and the asserted prior art, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,869,247
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.