• SZ Dji Technology Co., Ltd. / Parrot Inc. v. Drone-Control, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2019 · IPR2018-00207 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–6, 8–11, and 13–15 are anticipated by Thornberg ’983; claims 2, 7, and 12 are obvious over Thornberg ’983 and Karem. The motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner did not file a Patent Owner Response and has not otherwise disputed Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. See Tr. 77:1–6. We find, based on our review of the complete record, that the evidence of record supports a level of ordinary skill in the art consistent with Petitioner’s definition. Our findings are supported by the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and the ’116 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:36–37 (“This invention relates generally to radio controlled toys such as airplanes and helicopters.”); Ex. 1006, 1:8–10 (“The present invention relates to the control of remotely operated vehicles, and more particularly to a variable reference for the control of a remotely operated vehicle.”), see id. at 3:41–44 (“The system provides for the referencing of vehicle commands based on an operator frame of reference so that control commands provided by the operator remain intuitive and independent of the orientation of the vehicle with respect to the operator.”). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it to our discussion below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Ex. 1006, 5:22–29. We further observe that once the disclosed pitch/roll commands (i.e., command data) are provided to the pitch axis and roll axis transformation functions, the pitch axis transformation 410 and roll axis transformation 412 use transformation equations to determine a transformed pitch stick signal (TPSS) and a transformed roll stick signal (TRSS). See Ex. 1006, 6:17–28. In other words, the flight control computer transforms received command pitch/roll data into TPSS and TRSS commands. In performing this transformation, the pitch axis transformation function 410 and the roll axis transformation function 412 also receive a transformation angle (θ) input. Id. at 5:30–32. Thornberg ’983 teaches that the transformation angle θ is determined based on the true heading of the vehicle as determined by the navigation system 36 and the desired vehicle reference and vehicle reference mode. Id. at 5:31–35. As discussed above, we find that the true heading of the vehicle as determined by navigation system 36 provides motion data generated by a sensor. Thornberg ’983 teaches that the transformations into TPSS and TRSS take into account transformation angle (θ), which Thornberg ’983 teaches is determined based on the true heading (i.e., motion data) of the vehicle and the control data (pitch/roll commands) received from control panel 200 of the remote operator control. See Ex. 1006, 4:29–33, 5:23–25, 5:36–38. Further, in the operator reference mode, the orientation of the operator/remote control upon activation of the operator mode is used as the reference axis (i.e., operator’s coordinate system). Additionally, as noted in the Petition (see Pet. 30–31), Thornberg ’983 teaches a variable operator reference mode in which the operator reference changes based on changes in the orientation of the operator control panel. Ex. 1006, 7:32–35. Based on the disclosure discussed above, we find that the pitch and roll commands received at lines 405, 415 in the operator mode teach command data in “a first coordinate system from a perspective of the remote control device” as recited in claim 1. Moreover, we find that Thornberg ’983 teaches that the received pitch/roll command data is transformed into control data in “a second coordinate system that is from a perspective of the RC aircraft.” Specifically, Thornberg ’983 teaches that the transformation equations 1 and 2 transform the pitch command and roll command based on the difference between the aircraft heading and the reference heading. See Ex. 1066, 7:9–11, 7:19–24. Further, Dr. Hansman testifies that TPSS and TRSS control data control the vehicle in the vehicle’s coordinate system, which is from the perspective of the vehicle. Ex. 1003 ¶ 411. We credit Dr. Hansman’s undisputed testimony in this regard because this testimony is consistent with the disclosure of Thornberg ’983, which teaches, among other things, that “[t]he system provides for the referencing of vehicle commands based on an operator frame of reference so that control commands provided by the operator remain intuitive and independent of the orientation of the vehicle with respect to the operator.” Ex. 1006, 3:41–44.” slip op. at 19

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

    “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to modify Thornberg’s control panel 200 to “control” the UAV 100 in a hovering state, i.e., by sending appropriate lift command data to the vehicle when the operator releases the input controls as Karem teaches, in order to facilitate aerial tasks that may involve a hovering state, such as airborne surveillance, inspection, maintenance, and repair, that Thornberg teaches were “well known” uses of UAVs. Ex. 1006, 1:15-24; Ex. 1003, ¶443. Pet. 45. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale and evidence demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 7, and 12 would have been obvious in view of Thornberg ’983 and Karem. For example, Petitioner’s arguments are supported by the disclosure of Karem, which teaches a remotely-operated vehicle in a hovering state (Ex. 1008, 7:13–23, 32–39, and Thornberg ’983 teaches remotely operated vehicles include helicopters (Ex. 1006, 1:14–17). Further, Petitioner’s arguments are supported by Dr. Hansman’s undisputed testimony that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Thornberg ’983’s control panel 200 to control UAV 100 in a hovering state, i.e., by sending appropriate lift command data to the vehicle when the operator releases the input controls as Karem teaches, in order to facilitate aerial tasks that may involve a hovering state, such as airborne surveillance, inspection, maintenance, and repair. Ex. 1003 ¶ 443. This testimony is supported by Thornberg ’983’s teaching that (1) airborne surveillance, inspection, maintenance, and repair were well known uses of UAVs; and (2) remote operation of UAVs apply to remotely operated helicopters. See Ex. 1006, 1:15–24.” slip op. at 29

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “In the same manner described in the ’116 patent, we find that the orientation of the control panel in Thornberg ’983 indicates the angular displacement (i.e., position data) of the vehicle relative to the operator mode reference axis because the control panel is directed toward the vehicle. Thornberg ’983’s Figure 2 discloses that the control panel is directly facing the remotely operated vehicle, which is nearly identical to placement of the remote control device and RC aircraft in Figure 5 of the ’116 patent. Ex. 1001, 3:67–4:2, Fig. 5; Ex. 1006, Fig. 2.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 9,079,116 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,079,116
• Pfizer, Inc. / Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-02139 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29–31, 33, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 78, 80, and 81 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “Petitioner Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Bioepis”) timely submitted a Petition presenting substantially the same challenges as set forth in Pfizer’s Petition along with a request for joinder to IPR2017-01488. IPR2017- 02139. Paper 1. We granted Bioepis’s Petition and associated request for joinder to this case. IPR2017-02139, Paper 11, 6–7.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of a person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent. See Pet. 15–16; Prelim. Resp. 18; PO Resp. 18. In our institution decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Dec. 8. Petitioners do not contest this definition in its Reply and we find no reason to revise our earlier determination.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “variable domain,” which appears in claims 4, 33, 62, and 69, to mean “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19; PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner correctly points out that this “construction comes directly from the definition provided in the ’213 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:32–38). Petitioners expressly adopt this construction in their Reply. Pet. Reply 5–6. We do not agree, however, that the claims demand a consensus of “all” human immunoglobulins in the literal sense. Indeed, Petitioners point out that “the ‘consensus’ sequence used for the patent variants was generated using the most common residue at each position identified in [Kabat 198711].” Pet. Reply 15 (citations omitted). And though Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Queen 1990 as describing “a consensus framework from many human antibodies,’ not all as in the ’213 patent,’” it presents no argument as to why we should interpret the claim in this manner. 11 Kabat et al., Sequences of Proteins of Immunological Interest: Tabulation and Analysis of Amino Acid and Nucleic Acid Sequences of Precursors, V- Regions, C-Regions, J-Chain, T-Cell Receptor for Antigen, T-Cell Surface Antigens β2-Microglobulin, Major Histocompatibility Antigens, Thy-1 Complement, C-Reactive Protein, Thymopoietin, Post-Gamma Globulin, and α2-Macroblobulin, 41–175 (4th Ed. 1987). Ex. 1052. See PO Resp. 47. Moreover, in a parallel proceeding involving the same patent, Patent Owner did not dispute that the reference to “all sequences” in the patent, “refer[s] to all known sequences and there’s no dispute . . . that was really synonymous with Kabat 1987.” See IPR2017-01374 Paper 82, Tr. 15:4–16:4; see Ex. 1202 ¶ 157; Ex. 2105 ¶¶ 24–25; Ex. 2107 ¶¶ 18–19; Ex. 1198, 56:20–61:24; Ex. 1199, 27:14–28:13, 29:25–36:2, 57:1–58:6, 115:7–17, 165:17–169:9. Indeed, in a similar parallel proceeding, counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged that the term “all human immunoglobulins” refers to “all reasonably available[,] all known at the time of the invention.” IPR2017-01373, Paper 83, 47:21–48:5. Accordingly, we adopt the parties’ proposed construction, with a clarifying modification, specifically, “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure, as set forth in Kabat 1987.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient.” In our institution decision, we determined that this claim language “refer[s] to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” Dec. 10–12. Neither party disputes this interpretation. See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 5–6. Consistent with claim 63’s express comparison between the immunogenicity of the claimed humanized antibody and that of its non-human parent, the Specification states that one object of the invention is to “to provide methods for the preparation of antibodies which are less antigenic in humans than non-human antibodies but have desired antigen binding and other characteristics and activities.” Ex. 1001, 4:24–28. The Specification similarly states that embodiments within the scope of the claims have “low immunogenicity,” or are designed to “minimize the potential immunogenicity of the resulting humanized antibody in the clinic.” Id. at 52:54–58, 61:56–61. Moreover, with reference to claim 63 in particular, Patent Owner points to the ’272 application as “explain[ing] that the purpose of humanizing antibodies using its consensus sequence approach is to reduce immunogenicity versus the non-human parent antibody. (Id., 6:24–30, 84:24–30.).” Prelim. Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2032 (File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 07/715,272 (“the ’272 application”)); see also id. at 38 (indicating that the limitation is satisfied where “[o]nly 1 out of 885 patients experienced an immunogenic response . . . which was a substantial improvement over the murine 4D5 antibody”). In light of the above, we do not alter our prior determination that “[a] humanized antibody which lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient,” refers to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,407,213
• Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 27, 2017 · IPR2017-00739 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–11 and 14–17 under § 325(d), finding the priority issue and Nabholtz ground had been considered during prosecution.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Prelim. Resp. 10–11; see also id. 11, n.3 (arguing that Applicant demonstrated support for a three-part combination comprising a “further therapeutic agent”). Having considered the Specification of the ’649 Application and the arguments raised during prosecution, as discussed section II(B), above, Petitioner has not presented any further evidence in this proceeding that would persuade us to reach a conclusion different from the Examiner’s position that the challenged claims are adequately disclosed in the priority document.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “established priority for those claims based upon the parent application’s specific disclosure of using growth inhibitory agents as part of the present invention. (Ex. 1119-5 at 179 (citing Ex. 1121 at 20 (16:11- 24), 39 (35:6-14), 41 (37:9-18).) Based upon that disclosure, the examiner agreed that the claims reciting a combination with “a further growth inhibitory agent” were supported by, and thus entitled to priority to, the parent applications. (Ex. 1119-5 at 41; id. at 292-93; Ex. 1119- 6 at 245.) Prelim. Resp. 10–11; see also id. 11, n.3 (arguing that Applicant demonstrated support for a three-part combination comprising a “further therapeutic agent”). Having considered the Specification of the ’649 Application and the arguments raised during prosecution, as discussed section II(B), above, Petitioner has not presented any further evidence in this proceeding that would persuade us to reach a conclusion different from the Examiner’s position that the challenged claims are adequately disclosed in the priority document.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledDecided for patent owner

    “combination are needed to demonstrate that they can be usefully combined,’” flatly contradicts Patent Owner’s position that the ’649 Application and ’346 Provisional Application adequately disclose the claimed invention. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1119-5, 308–09). We do not find Petitioner’s argument persuasive. As an initial matter, Petition fails to address the “Wands” factors in its enablement analysis. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “As discussed in section II(B), above, the Examiner considered fully the written description and enablement issues underlying Applicant’s claim to priority in allowing the claims to issue, and Petitioner has not presented new evidence or arguments that would convince us that the Examiner’s determination was unreasonable. The Examiner’s decision to withdraw the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Nabholtz was expressly predicated on that priority determination, which removed Nabholtz as prior art. In Ground I of this Petition, Petitioner also asserts that the claims are unpatentable under § 102(b) over Nabholtz, thus raising “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously [] presented to the Office” as contemplated under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Under the circumstances of this case, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) and decline to institute inter partes review based on Ground I.” slip op. at 18

  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,892,549
• Sega Of America, Inc. / Ubisoft, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. And Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2016 · IPR2014-01453 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–11 and 17–20 as anticipated by Schull; claims 10–11 also as obvious over Schull; claims 12–14 as anticipated by Logan or obvious over Haines and Manduley; claims 15–16 as obvious …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “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 ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An invention “composed of several elements 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. Moreover, a determination of unpatentability on the ground of obviousness must include “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The obviousness analysis “should be made explicit” and 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.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In addition, we do not find credible Dr. DiEuliis’s testimony that the text in Figure 2B, which states “registration no. generated from user details added to serial no. is encrypted and re-arranged,” describes the addition of two numbers (registration no. and serial no.). There is no previous step in the flowchart depicted in Figure 2B that describes the step of generating the registration number to indicate that the registration number is an input, rather than an output. Ex. 1025, Fig. 2B; see Ex. 1026, Fig. 2. Further, as explained next, the “user details” encompass text, which further explains why the flowchart is not discussing the addition of numbers.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached

    “Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that certain claim terms lack definiteness or written description support, because those issues are neither appropriate for an inter partes review proceeding nor briefed by the parties, we do not address them in this decision. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). For purposes of this decision and for the reasons expressed by the District Court, we adopt and apply the constructions provided in the table above. See Ex. 1008, 53–54, 58–61.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Schull discloses a summation algorithm for generating its Passwordable ID. As explained by Petitioner, Schull’s algorithm combines three ID numbers: Program ID, Feature ID, and Target ID, which Petitioner refers to as X, Y, and Z in its explanation. Pet. 21. The X number has “N” digits, the Y number has “M” digits, and the Z number has “T” digits. Id. The algorithm combines the numbers X, Y, and Z “(e.g., by concatenating them to produce a number” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 5,490,216 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,490,216
• Sega Of America, Inc. / Ubisoft, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. And Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2016 · IPR2015-01026 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–11 and 17–20 over Schull, claims 12–14 over Logan and Haines with Manduley, and claims 15–16 over Logan and Grundy.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence that the Australian provisional applications conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art a summation algorithm or a summer and equivalents thereof. The preponderance of the evidence is that the cited disclosures from the Australian provisional applications are insufficient for this purpose.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In addition, we do not find credible Dr. DiEuliis’s testimony that the text in Figure 2B, which states “registration no. generated from user details added to serial no. is encrypted and re-arranged,” describes the addition of two numbers (registration no. and serial no.). There is no previous step in the flowchart depicted in Figure 2B that describes the step of generating the registration number to indicate that the registration number is an input, rather than an output. Ex. 1025, Fig. 2B; see Ex. 1026, Fig. 2. Further, as explained next, the “user details” encompass text, which further explains why the flowchart is not discussing the addition of numbers.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Schull discloses a summation algorithm for generating its Passwordable ID. As explained by Petitioner, Schull’s algorithm combines three ID numbers: Program ID, Feature ID, and Target ID, which Petitioner refers to as X, Y, and Z in its explanation. Pet. 21. The X number has “N” digits, the Y number has “M” digits, and the Z number has “T” digits. Id. The algorithm combines the numbers X, Y, and Z “(e.g., by concatenating them to produce a number 3 Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Madisetti’s observation that Schull contains a typographical error (referring first to P, F, and T-digits and then to N, M, and T-digits) and his determination that N and M are equivalent to P and F. Ex. 1007 ¶ 41. with N+M+T digits)”. Ex. 1002, 7:24–25; Pet. 21; Ex. 1007 ¶ 41. In 1992, concatenating three integers to produce the desired result “boils down to two basic approaches: (1) multiplying the first integer and second integer by a power of ten (dependent on the number of digits of the subsequent numbers) and adding the three integers together, or (2) converting the integers to ‘strings,’ concatenating the strings, and converting the result back to an integer.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 42. Using the former approach to produce a number with the combined number of digits as the numbers being combined, which Petitioner argues is the one disclosed in Schull, Dr. Madisetti describes the mathematical operations that can be performed programmatically. The mathematical operation provided by Dr. Madisetti is X*10(M+T) + Y*10T + Z, which uses multiplication and addition. Id. ¶¶ 44; Pet. 21. According to Dr. Madisetti, this approach is a summation algorithm and is “computationally quicker” for the reason that “it is a matter of performing basic calculations and processing smaller numbers, as opposed to converting, combining and reconverting large strings . . . .” Ex. 1007 ¶ 43.” slip op. at 28

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “supports Petitioner’s assertion that claim 12 would have been obvious over the combination of Haines and Manduley. As an initial matter, we find Haines and Manduley to be analogous art. The PTO and its reviewing courts have developed and applied a two-step “test” to determine whether a prior art reference is “analogous” art and therefore may be used as evidence with respect to a question of obviousness under § 103. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032 (CCPA 1979). Step 1 requires an answer to the following question: “Is the reference within the field of the inventor’s endeavor?” If the answer is “yes,” then the reference is “analogous” and therefore may be used as evidence. If the answer is “no,” then Step 2 requires an answer to the following question: “Is the reference reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the inventor was trying to solve?” If the answer is “yes,” then the reference is analogous and therefore may be used as evidence. Haines and Manduley are analogous art because, like the ’216 patent, they relate to systems for remotely permitted use of software on a device. Ex. 1007 ¶ 59. The scope of the ’216 patent is not limited to personal computers, but, rather, any “platform” on which software runs. Ex. 1001, 2:52–55 (“In broad terms, the system according to the invention is designed and adapted to allow digital data or software to run in a use mode on a platform . . . .”), 2:24–30 (“[T]he term ‘platform’ denotes an environment to be associated with a computer device such as a microprocessor or other data processing device which permits execution of the digital data . . . .”). Even if the Haines and Manduley references could be considered in a different field of endeavor than the ’216 patent because their intended use is postage and parcel systems rather than a personal computer, they are analogous art for the additional reason that they relate to the problem of restricting access to software to those who have a right to use it. Ex. 1001, 2:40–44 (“In this specification, ‘use mode’ refers to use of the digital data or software by its execution on a platform so as to fulfill the seller’s/licensor’s obligations in relation to the sale or license of the right to execute the digital data or software in the use mode.”); Ex. 1005, Abstr., 1:41–49 (“only authorized meter reconfigurations can occur”), 11:13–17; Ex. 1006, Abstr, 1:29–32 (“the marketer may wish to charge the customer a separate amount for each software function or each variety of data and the customer may wish to pick and choose among the functions and/or varieties”), 2:31–63.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 5,490,216 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,490,216
• Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Ltd. / Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Galderma Laboratories, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 16, 2016 · IPR2015-01778 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 were unpatentable over the asserted references.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “CONCLUSION Petitioner does not convince us that non-provisional parent applications of the ’506 patent (as represented by the specification of the ’506 patent) fail to provide adequate written descriptive support for the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not agree with Petitioner’s contention that the ‘506 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the April 5, 2002, filing date of the earliest of those applications under 35 U.S.C. § 120 such that Ashley ’572, Ashley ’267, and/or ORACEA would qualify as prior art.10 Consequently, Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 are unpatentable in view of the asserted references. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of the ’506 patent.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “We do not find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive. As an initial matter, we note that Petitioner has not established that the term “acne rosacea” was “antiquated and outdated” as of the earliest filing date of the chain of applications leading to issuance of the ’506 patent. Nor does Petitioner establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that term to indicate rosacea—a condition commonly known to encompass inflammatory papules and pustules, albeit not comedones. See Pet. 22; Prelim. Resp. 18–19; Ex. 1004 ¶ 13; Ex. 1034, 144. To the extent a dermatologist would not, as Petitioner argues, “have lumped [acne vulgaris and rosacea] together in a single genus,” does not persuade us that written description is lacking. An inventor may choose to be his own lexicographer and give terms uncommon meanings if “done with reasonable clarity, deliberativeness, and precision.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the present case, we find no ambiguity in the ’506 patent’s definition of the invention as directed to the treatment of “all known types of acne,” including both acne vulgaris and rosacea. See Ex. 1001, 4:31–43. The ’506 patent characterizes the genus acne as “a disorder of the skin characterized by papules, pustules . . . and other blemishes or skin lesions,” and notes that rosacea evinces specific characteristics of “inflammatory lesions (erythema) and permanent dilation of blood vessels (telangiectasia).” Id. at 4:23–30, 41–43. We are not persuaded that written description is lacking because not all of the symptoms attributed to the genus acne apply to rosacea, or that a symptom specific to rosacea (i.e, telangiectasia) may only be treated surgically. See Pet. 23. Rather, we find it sufficient that the specification teaches the treatment of papules and pustules of the genus “acne”—expressly defined by the inventor as including rosacea.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “CONCLUSION Petitioner does not convince us that non-provisional parent applications of the ’506 patent (as represented by the specification of the ’506 patent) fail to provide adequate written descriptive support for the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not agree with Petitioner’s contention that the ‘506 patent is not entitled to the benefit of the April 5, 2002, filing date of the earliest of those applications under 35 U.S.C. § 120 such that Ashley ’572, Ashley ’267, and/or ORACEA would qualify as prior art.10 Consequently, Petitioner has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 are unpatentable in view of the asserted references.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “i. Rosacea The parties agree that the ’506 patent identifies rosacea (“acne rosacea”) as a form of acne. Pet. 30–31; Prelim. Resp. 7. Although Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not classify rosacea as a form of acne (Pet. 22; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 12, 13), we apply the inventor’s clearly expressed definition that “acne include[s] . . . acne rosacea” (Ex. 1001 4:31–41). With respect to the symptoms of rosacea, however, neither party contends that uncommon meanings apply. Pet. 30– 31; Prelim. Resp. 6–8. We therefore construe rosacea as a form of acne having symptoms including papules, pustules, erythema, and telangiectasia, where the predominant lesions are papules and pustules. See Ex. 1001, 4:23–43; Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 7, 19 (“‘The predominant lesions [in rosacea] are papules and pustules.’ ([Ex. 1056] at 680; see also Exh. 1046, at 852, 958; Exh. 1047, at 1023, 1175.).”” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,603,506
• Intermix Media, LLC v. Bally Gaming, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 20, 2016 · CBM2015-00154 · APJ Hyun J Jung · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that claims 1–34, 38, 39, and 45–77 were more likely than not ineligible under § 101.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner fails to provide a credible analysis considering the elements of the challenged claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the challenged claims into a patent-eligible application in accordance with the second step of the Alice analysis. The Petition fails to provide a credible and sufficient explanation as to whether an element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure that the ’918 patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. The Petition, instead, asserts cursory and conclusory arguments with no or insufficient evidence that the additional claim elements are well known or recite generic structure. See Pet. 31–80. Petitioner’s failure to do a full analysis under Alice constitutes a breach of 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(4), as well as 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3), which requires identifying the grounds “with particularity.”” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner fails to provide a credible analysis considering the elements of the challenged claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the challenged claims into a patent-eligible application in accordance with the second step of the Alice analysis. The Petition fails to provide a credible and sufficient explanation as to whether an element or combination of elements is sufficient to ensure that the ’918 patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. The Petition, instead, asserts cursory and conclusory arguments with no or insufficient evidence that the additional claim elements are well known or recite generic structure. See Pet. 31–80. Petitioner’s failure to do a full analysis under Alice constitutes a breach of 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(4), as well as 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3), which requires identifying the grounds “with particularity.”” slip op. at 7

  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 5,816,918
• Headbox, LLC v. Infinite Imagineering, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 22, 2015 · IPR2014-00365 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 8–14, 16–19, 22, and 24–26 are unpatentable under § 103; claim 23 is indefinite under § 112, and its obviousness was not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “headphone set in accordance with claim 1, where each of said speaker headphones includes a pair of stereo headphone driver units in order to increase the volume/audio level when said speaker headphones are not positioned on the user’s head.” Ex. 1001, 12:5–9 (emphasis added). Claim 23 additionally recites “wherein each of said headphone driver units includes a volume controlling means for regulating and presetting the volume level for said exterior speakers and said interior speakers.” Id. at 12:23–26 (emphasis added). Petitioner contends, and we agree, that “volume controlling means” is a means-plus-function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, and that the claimed function is regulating and presetting the volume level for the exterior speakers and the interior speakers. Pet. 11. Petitioner also contends that the Specification does not identify any structure that corresponds to this function. Id. “If the specification does not contain an adequate disclosure of the structure that corresponds to the claimed function, the patentee will have failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112, which renders the claim invalid for indefiniteness.” Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Specification teaches that one embodiment of headphone set 10 includes driver unit 70 for interior speakers 42, 44, and driver unit 72 for exterior speakers 38, 40, with driver units 70, 72 including “volume controlling means” 71 and 73, respectively. Ex. 1001, 6:40–45, Fig. 2B.7 According to the Specification, the volume controlling means are for presetting a maximum volume to each of the interior and exterior speakers, presumably to prevent hearing damage caused by excessively loud audio. Id. at 6:57–7:2. But the Specification does not describe or depict the structure that the volume controlling means uses to preset the maximum volume. Instead, it merely describes their function and depicts each of them as a box in a block diagram. Id. This is not sufficient because it does not “cabin the scope of the functional language in the means[-plus-function] element.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 518–19 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that a “black box” in a flow chart only represents a function without specifying structure). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’966 patent Specification does not describe structure corresponding to the function of presetting a maximum volume to the interior and exterior speakers, rendering claim 23 indefinite.” slip op. at 6

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteOther

    “which renders the claim invalid for indefiniteness.” Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Specification teaches that one embodiment of headphone set 10 includes driver unit 70 for interior speakers 42, 44, and driver unit 72 for exterior speakers 38, 40, with driver units 70, 72 including “volume controlling means” 71 and 73, respectively. Ex. 1001, 6:40–45, Fig. 2B.7 According to the Specification, the volume controlling means are for presetting a maximum volume to each of the interior and exterior speakers, presumably to prevent hearing damage caused by excessively loud audio. Id. at 6:57–7:2. But the Specification does not describe or depict the structure that the volume controlling means uses to preset the maximum volume. Instead, it merely describes their function and depicts each of them as a box in a block diagram. Id. This is not sufficient because it does not “cabin the scope of the functional language in the means[-plus-function] element.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 518–19 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that a “black box” in a flow chart only represents a function without specifying structure). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’966 patent Specification does not describe structure corresponding to the function of presetting a maximum volume to the interior and exterior speakers, rendering claim 23 indefinite.” slip op. at 7

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

    “speaker headphone (ear covers 20) on opposing ends of a headband—each speaker headphone comprising an exterior speaker (audio speaker 25) and an interior speaker (earphone speaker 27)—and a signal wire connecting an audio device output to the speaker headphones. Ex. 1003, 2:8–20, 23–44, 53–59, 3:24–32, Figs. 1, 2. Kuo also discloses a switch that allows a user to listen to either the interior speakers or exterior speakers, although it does not describe the claimed three-way switch that also allows a user to 8 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied may be considered admitted.”). simultaneously listen to both interior and exterior speakers. Id. at 2:32–44, 3:27–29. We find, however, that Awaba discloses a three-way switch (mode switch 28) that permits a user to select between the three claimed listening modes. Ex. 1004, 2:5–12, 27–28, 4:30–36, Fig. 1. Further, a skilled artisan9 would have considered Awaba’s three-way switch to be an obvious substitute for Kuo’s two-way switch because both are used for essentially the same purpose: to select between a headphone’s internal and external speakers on similar speaker-equipped headphones. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the substitution because Awaba’s threeway switch adds the additional functionality of being able to play both sets of speakers at the same time.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentable

    “claim 1. We find that the combination of Kuo and Awaba teaches the additional limitations recited in these claims. Specifically, Kuo discloses the input jack, amplifier member, power source, headphone shape and audio-device connection of, respectively, claims 8–10, 12, and 16. Ex. 1003, 2:21– 31, 37–39, 47–59, 3:4–32, Figs. 1, 2, 5–7. Kuo’s mounting of ear covers 20 at the joint ends 11 of headband 10 corresponds to the requirements of claim 5. Id. at 2:12–18, Fig. 2. Further, Awaba discloses the three-way switch of claims 2 and 11 and the electrical connections of claim 11 (Ex. 1004, 2:24– 28, 4:25–36, Fig. 1); Awaba’s transmission of mono signals corresponds to 9 We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art). the monaural system of claim 24 (id. at 4:26–29); and Awaba’s socket 24 corresponds to claim 26’s pocket (id. at 4:10–17). Adding these features to Kuo’s headphones would have constituted use of known techniques to improve similar devices (speaker-equipped headphones) in the same way. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (holding that “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”).” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,085,966 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,085,966

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.