- Crusoe Energy Systems, LLC v. Upstream Data Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2025 · PGR2023-00039 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 24 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept; the petitioner did not prove the remaining challenged claims unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citations omitted). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id. (citation omitted). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a degree in chemical engineering, petroleum engineering, process engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar field with 1–2 years of experience in designing power generation systems, Blockchain mining systems, or other comparable hands-on experience.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Petitioner adds that “[a]lternatively, a person having 3–5 years of experience in the Blockchain mining industry would also qualify as a POSITA” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, or vice versa.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We apply the same claim construction standard used in district court actions under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), namely that articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2024). In applying that standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“To address that “the mining processors are connected to the network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database,” as recited by limitation [1c_iii], Petitioner asserts that CryptoKube’s system includes “Bitcoin miners such as spondooliestech SP35 servers.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–4). And, relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Kasdorf, Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that to mine Bitcoin, the mining processors need to be connected to a network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database, which is implemented as a public ledger distributed among many peer-to-peer devices connected to the Internet. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 108–109; Ex. 1010 ¶ 419). Mr. Kasdorf’s declaration testimony is nearly verbatim to the Petition and similarly provides no indication as to what in CryptoKube constitutes a “mining processor” other than his conclusory opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that to mine bitcoin, the mining processors need to be connected to a network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the 19 We note that Mr. Kasdorf’s reliance on Kheterpal is limited to Kheterpal’s background discussion regarding the Bitcoin protocol inasmuch as it “defines a system in which the creation and distribution of the bitcoin cryptocurrency is governed by consensus among a peer-to-peer network” and includes “a public ledger in which new transactions are verified and recorded by members of the network via cryptography.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 4. Ex. 1004 ¶ 108 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 4). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that in the Petition, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Kasdorf explains or “cite[s] any evidence regarding which component is the ‘necessarily’ present mining processor (limitation 1[c_i]) or how this unspecified mining processor is ‘connected to the network interface and adapted to . . . communicate with the blockchain database’ (limitation 1[c_iii]).” PO Resp. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 104–105, 108–109).” slip op. at 21
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s contention that “a combination of an ASIC chip and a controller would meet the ‘mining processor’ limitation” (Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 21)) is an improper new argument. In determining whether an argument is a proper argument in reply, we look to see if the Reply argument is responsive to an argument from Patent Owner and expands on a position in the Petition. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[W]e have held that a reply may be proper if it is responsive and simply expands on previously raised arguments.”). Or, if Petitioner relies on previously unidentified disclosure “to make a meaningfully distinct contention.” Id. at 1383 (“[W]e held that a petitioner who asserted in its reply previously unidentified prior-art disclosures ‘to make a meaningfully distinct contention’ was impermissibly raising a new theory of unpatentability.”). We find that Petitioner’s argument in reply is closer to the later situation. Here Petitioner does not expand on a position from the Petition that Patent Owner criticizes based on the merits of the contentions. Rather, Petitioner supplements its conclusory assertion that a “mining processor” is necessarily present in CryptoKube’s spondooliestech SP35 servers (Pet. 23, 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–4)) with its new assertion that that “a combination of an ASIC chip and a controller would meet the ‘mining processor’ limitation.” Pet. Reply 11. Petitioner does not purport to have presented this theory in the Petition. Id. Instead, Petitioner argues that this theory was properly raised in response to what Petitioner alleges to be an admission by” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 11,574,372 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,574,372 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2024 · PGR2024-00026 · APJ Hyun J Jung · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–7 and all grounds because Petitioner showed it was more likely than not that at least one challenged claim lacks written-description support.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this stage, Petitioner’s arguments, cited portions of the Specification, and supporting testimonial evidence demonstrate that it is more likely than not that claims 1–7 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDecided for petitioner
“patent describes that “angular position transducer 78 is placed on top of swing leg pivot shaft 24” and that “pivot shaft 24 is rotationally fixed to the connector plate and duplicates the angular movements of swing leg 20 about the pivot shaft.” Ex. 1001, 12:15–16, 12:20–22, Figs. 5, 7. The ’723 patent also describes that “[a]ngular position transducer 78 is mounted inside . . . protective can 90 . . . which is bolted to hinge bracket 28 via an upright holding arm 92” and that “trigger pin 94 projects upwardly from the top surface of pivot shaft 24 and cooperates with angular position transducer 78 to generate an angular position signal.” Id. at 12:28–33, Fig. 5. These descriptions expressly convey that angular position transducer 78 is on pivot shaft 24 and mounted inside protective can 90 that is bolted to hinge bracket 28. Id. at 12:15–16, 12:20–22, 12:28–30, Figs. 5, 7; see also Prelim. Resp. 17 (describing the same embodiment shown in Figs. 5 and 7). According to Petitioner, the ’723 patent describes the pivot shaft as part of the hinge bracket, not the modular frame or swing leg. Pet. 109–110 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:42–46, 12:17–22). On the preliminary record, we agree because the cited portions of the Specification describe that a “hinge bracket is interposed between each swing leg and an associated surface of the bolsters and includes a fixed, upright pivot shaft that pivotally engages the swing leg for pivotal movements” and “pivot shaft 24 is rotationally fixed to the connector plate.” Ex. 1001, 7:42–45, 12:20–21. We also agree that “even if one were to find that the hinge bracket is part of either the modular frame or swing leg (contrary to the claims and specification treating these all as separate components), the specification would only provide written description for one of the claimed alternatives.” Pet. 110 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 199).” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this preliminary stage, we determine that express claim interpretation is not necessary to determine whether it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. 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 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We will also not use our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the Petition based on arguments previously presented in IPR2021-00135, because Petitioner relies on a Board determination regarding claim 8 from IPR2021- 00136, not arguments previously made for claim 1 in IPR2021-00135. Pet. 111–115, 119; Prelim. Resp. 8–9; Prelim. Sur-reply 5. Furthermore, we determined the effective filing date of claim 8 of the ’571 patent without deciding, that other challenged claims, such as claim 1, were entitled to their earliest possible effective filing date. See Godberson-Smith, Paper 61 at 11, 12.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,772,723 - PTAB · Sep 3, 2024 · IPR2023-00797 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Remand
The Board denied institution because Honda did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 23, 24, 26, or 27 were obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsRemand decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of challenged claims 23, 24, 26, and 27 of the ’302 patent. Accordingly, constrained by the record before us, we deny institution of an inter partes review of the ’302 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“We find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive, and the above testimony of its technical expert, Mr. Alberth, even more so. Based on the foregoing and the record before us, we find Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that the ’586 Provisional lacks written description support for the feature of a transmitter configured to form and transmit, in response to a received request, “the probing signal with a code sequence modulated in the frequency domain,” as recited in independent claim 23. Although not its burden, we find Patent Owner sufficiently evidences that the disclosure of the ’586 Provisional would have reasonably conveyed to skilled artisans that the inventor possessed the features of the subject limitation. 5. Conclusion For the reasons expressed above, and based on the record before us, we determine Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Koo is prior art to the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that any of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable as obvious over the combination of 802.16a-2003, 802.16-2001, and Koo.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“But in doing so, Petitioner ignores the context in which the skilled artisan would have read Kitroser: where IEEE, the governing body issuing the Call for Contributions, itself explicitly questioned “if [implementing 802.16a in a mobile systems environment] is technically feasible and, if so, at what level” (Ex. 2007, 1 (emphasis added)), and where, as noted above, Kitroser provides no explanation, support, or other commentary for its “no changes” statements, and admits such statements are “subject to change in form and content after further study” and subject to amendment and withdrawal entirely (Ex. 1007, 1–4 (emphasis added)). Based on the foregoing, although Petitioner may have identified a “reason” that the skilled artisan allegedly would have combined 802.16a with Kitroser, we are not persuaded that it is a rational reason, i.e., a reason sufficiently shown to have a rational underpinning at the time of the invention of the Challenged Claims. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (To support the legal conclusion of obviousness, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” for combining elements in the manner claimed. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988)).” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’302 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Buehrer (Ex. 1003 ¶ 23), except that we omit the two instances of “at least” to remove the unbounded nature of the definition.” slip op. at 13
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,771,302 - Crusoe Energy Systems, LLC v. Upstream Data Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 29, 2024 · PGR2023-00052 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · PGR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that claims 1–41 were unpatentable under any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and the cited evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not satisfied its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324 to show that it is more likely than not that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, but does not offer a definition of its own. Prelim. Resp. 5. According to Patent Owner, “[t]his Petition and related declaration propose two alternative levels of ordinary skill in the art, where the second alternative does not require any formal education or any experience in the field of oil or gas production.” Id. While Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain how a different level of skill is likely to alter Petitioner’s analysis. Instead, Patent Owner contends that it “applied Petitioner’s articulation and confirmed the analysis detailed below would not change based on disagreements over the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. (citing Ex. 2101 ¶¶ 16–17). 8 To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept Petitioner’s statement on the level of skill in the art. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (listing the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology as factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art). The prior art itself may be sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because the meanings of the claim terms “blockchain mining devices,” “mining processor,” and “adapted to mine transactions” are inextricably linked with Petitioner’s indefiniteness grounds, we will address the meaning of those terms in the context of the parties’ arguments to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy as set forth below in Section III.C. Similarly, we will address the parties’ arguments regarding the disputed means-plus-function limitations in our discussion of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as set forth below in Section III.E. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable
“To satisfy the definiteness requirement of § 112(b), a patent’s claims must, when “viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. We are not persuaded that the Petition shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in demonstrating that the term “blockchain mining devices,” as recited by independent claims 1 and 24, is indefinite. As an initial matter, we agree with Patent Owner that “Petitioner’s indefiniteness theory is flawed because its ‘alternative interpretations’ are of its incorrect claim construction rather than the claim language in view of the specification as required by Nautilus.” Prelim. Resp. 13. We find the Specification informs, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the meaning of the term “blockchain mining devices.” The 18 Specification informs us that “each blockchain mining device 12 may be composed of suitable components. The blockchain mining device 12 may have a network interface, such as network equipment 88, and one or a plurality of mining processors 92 (92A-92E for example).” Ex. 1001, 15:21–25. And, claim 1 recites that the “blockchain mining devices [are] connected to the generator” and “each have a mining processor and are connected to a network interface.” Id. at 19:59–62. Thus, reading the term “blockchain mining devices” in light of the language of the claim and the Specification, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood “blockchain mining devices” to mean a device composed of, for example, a network interface and one or more processors. Id. at 15:21–25, 19:59–62.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,574,372 - Popsockets LLC v. Flygrip, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00937 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2 and 8 are unpatentable under § 103 over the ’476 Publication and Hobbs because that combination teaches all limitations and has a supported motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Strike new argumentDenied
“evidence with its Sur-reply, “other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness,” but Petitioner does not explain adequately why these exhibits constitute “new evidence” to Petitioner, when they are, or should have been, the bases of its analysis regarding the asserted priority date of the challenged claims. See Pet. 17–41 (analyzing the asserted priority documents, the chain of priority to the Provisional Application, and the prosecution history of the ’024 patent). Some of the exhibits, such as Exhibits 2027 and 2028 (the as-filed grandparent and parent applications), should have already been included in the record. Patent Owner also violates our Rule 42.6(d), which states that “[a] document already in the record of the proceeding must not be filed again, not even as an exhibit or an appendix, without express Board authorization.” If we granted Petitioner’s motion, then Patent Owner’s citations to some documents already of record, and filed by Petitioner, would become meaningless and would deprive us of the ability to analyze documents already properly filed in view of the parties’ arguments. For the reasons above and on the facts of this proceeding, Petitioner does not satisfy its “burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). We, therefore, deny Petitioner’s Motion to Strike.” slip op. at 9
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“1012–1019, along with others, for the declaration filed with the Petition. Ex. 1025 ¶ 5. These exhibits show the basis for the testimony in the declaration, and an expert may rely on hearsay in forming an opinion under Federal Rules of Evidence 703. To the extent they are hearsay, we would limit their purpose to showing the basis for testimony. Also, dictionary definitions are routinely considered extrinsic evidence that may shed light on the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim term. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“Within the class of extrinsic evidence, the court has observed that dictionaries . . . can be useful in claim construction.”) (citation omitted). For the reasons explained by Petitioner (Paper 24, 6), the definitions were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and, thus, we do not consider these exhibits hearsay. For the reasons above, Patent Owner does not satisfy its “burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). We also do not rely on any of Exhibits 1004–1008 and 1012– 1019 to reach our determination. In view of the above, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 1004–1008 and 1012–1019 is denied.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had “a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and one year or more of experience in mechanical product design” (Pet. 11) and Patent Owner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a “bachelor’s degree in a technical field and at least 1 year of experience with product development” (PO Resp. 14), the parties substantially agree with respect to these aspects of their proposals for the level of ordinary skill. Petitioner contends, in the alternative, that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had “five years or more of experience in mechanical product design,” but Patent Owner alternatively contends that the ordinarily skilled artisan has “a college degree in a non-technical field and at least 3 years of experience in product development.” Pet. 11; PO Resp. 14 requires more years of experience than Patent Owner’s alternate person of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 11; PO Resp. 14. In view of the above, we see no reason to disturb our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had either (1) five years or more of experience in mechanical product design, or (2) a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and one year or more of experience in mechanical product design.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 25– 27). Based on the full record and for the reasons below, even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, our determination would be the same.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We agree with Petitioner that, in this proceeding, “conical” does not require an express interpretation to resolve the parties’ disputes. 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)). In the related proceeding, we determined that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the term “conical” does not exclude cones with a pyramidal shape. PopSockets LLC v. Flygrip, Inc., IPR2022-00938, Paper 29 at 19 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2023). To the extent any issue in this proceeding would implicate the interpretation of “conical,” we apply the same determination.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 10,800,024 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,800,024 - Lti Flexible Products, Inc. D/B/A Boyd Corporation v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2021-01189 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable because MacDonald was not prior art and the petition failed to establish anticipation or obviousness; the contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“The full record makes clear that the parties do not dispute the portion of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill regarding education and years of experience. Compare Pet. 14–15, with PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner acknowledges that the analysis does not depend on whether Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill or Patent Owner’s proposal is adopted. See PO Resp. 3–4; Ex. 2003 ¶ 34 (testifying that Patent Owner’s declarant has an understanding of the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art irrespective of which proposed skill level is adopted), ¶ 35. The parties’ proposals are consistent with the factors of GPAC, the disclosure of the ’728 patent, and the prior art of record. Ex. 1012 ¶ 71 (testifying that Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is based on considering the factors of GPAC); Ex. 2003 ¶ 32 (testifying that Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is based on the ’728 patent); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. In view of the above, we see no reason to disturb our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or a similar field that includes thermal sciences; and (2) at least two years of industrial experience on the design and evaluation of thermal management of electronic systems and heat pipes/TGPs.” Pet. 14–15; Ex. 1012 ¶ 71; Ex. 2003 ¶ 35. We agree with Patent Owner that the analysis would not be affected by adopting Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 3–4; Ex. 2003 ¶ 35.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that “the ordinary and customary meaning of the term ‘pitch’ in [c]laim 9 encompasses the definition of ‘pitch’ given in [c]laim 1—‘a distance from a center of one microfabricated structure to a center of a next neighboring microfabricated structure.’” Pet. 15. No claim term was interpreted expressly for our Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 10. Patent Owner does not propose expressly any interpretation for any claim term. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner, however, states that “claim 1 of the ’728 Patent expressly defines the claimed ‘pitch’ of the microfabricated structures as being ‘a distance from a center of one microfabricated structure to a center of a next neighboring microstructure.’” Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:45–48). Patent Owner notes that “[c]laim 9 does not include this particular definition, but the Board apparently applied the definition of the ‘pitch’ limitation in claim 1 to claim 9, as did Petitioner.” Id. “Patent Owner does not dispute or disagree with this.” Id. Based on the full record and because the parties do not dispute it, we apply the definition of pitch in claim 1 to the recited pitch of claim 9. Also, based on the full record, we determine that no other claim term requires express interpretation. 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 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner appears to be seeking verbatim support, when, as argued by Patent Owner, the Specification does not need to provide exact or verbatim support to meet the written description requirement. See Pet. 20; PO Resp. 32. One of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately discerned that 5–500 microns is well within 2–1500 microns calculated by Petitioner using the parent applications’ claim 2. See Pet. 21–22; PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2003 ¶ 47. The numerical differences between the derived and claimed ranges do not address sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would not discern the claimed range. See Pet. 20. As determined above, the disclosure would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the claimed “distance from a center of one microfabricated structure to a center of a next neighboring microfabricated structure” has a range of values, such as the 2– 1500 microns calculated by Petitioner. See id. at 22. The numerical differences between the calculated ranges and the claimed ranges alone fail to show that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have discerned the claimed range of 5–500 microns from the range of 2–1500 microns.” slip op. at 42
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner responds that “[b]ecause MacDonald does not qualify as prior art against the claims of the ‘728 Patent, Petitioner has failed to show that the challenged claims of the ‘728 Patent . . . would have been obvious over MacDonald in view of Ding.” PO Resp. 40. No reply arguments are presented specifically for the obviousness challenge. See generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. For the reasons given above, we agree with Patent Owner that MacDonald is not prior art to the ’728 patent. PO Resp. 39. Accordingly, based on the full record, Petitioner fails to show by a preponderance of the evidence that MacDonald and Ding would have rendered obvious claims 2, 3, and 7.” slip op. at 51
Patent outcomesUS 10,309,728 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,309,728 - PTAB · Sep 23, 2022 · PGR2022-00030 · APJ James J Mayberry · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–20 after finding it more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, including because Bucco anticipates claims 1, 2, 4–16, and 18–20.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We may not institute a post-grant review “unless . . . the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2011). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that at least one of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the Challenged Claims of the ’486 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that Petitioner’s definition is more consistent with the prior art of record, and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’486 patent, based on our review of the limited record. Specifically, we preliminarily find that the field of “consumer products,” as proposed by Patent Owner, is too broad, based on our review of the limited record before us, including the prior art of record, which is directed to razors and personal grooming devices. See Exs. 1003; 1005–1007; 1010; 1011; 2003–2007; 2010–2015. We note, however, that our conclusions in this Decision would not change if we applied Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Regardless of the parties’ proposed constructions, the parties do not dispute that the pivot member placement terms encompass embodiments beyond the embodiment illustrated in Figure 1 of the ’486 patent. See, e.g., Pet. 30–31 (“All . . . claims [other than claims 3 and 17] are necessarily broad enough to encompass a handle that includes the two opposed legs.”); Prelim. Resp. 49 (depicting embodiment where the two opposing legs are on a clevis attached to the handle). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we construe the pivot member placement terms to encompass embodiments beyond the embodiment illustrated in Figure 1 of the ’486 patent. We also determine, on the current record, that we need not construe any other claim term to resolve the parties’ dispute at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“Like in SunModo, the grandparent application expressly discloses the opposed legs attached to the cartridge and the pivot member attached to the arm of the handle only. The grandparent application does not describe the opposed legs as part of the handle. Nor does the application state that the position of the opposed legs and pivot member are flexible, such that they could be reversed. On the limited record before us, the lack of any disclosure in support of Patent Owner’s reversal of parts embodiment is fatal to Patent Owner’s position. Cf. SunModo, 890 F.3d at 1052 (“The lack of any disclosure of an assembly with a washer below the flashing, or statement on the flexibility of the position of the washer, is fatal to D Three’s argument.”). We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments and determine, on the current record, that they do not demonstrate a deficiency in Petitioner’s position. First, Patent Owner’s argument that reversal of parts is generally common practice within the level of ordinary skill goes to the obviousness of rearranging parts to reach what is now claimed, rather than the adequacy of the written description of what is now claimed. Cf. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572: The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought. . . . One shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious. Tellingly, Patent Owner relies, at least in part, on MPEP Section 2144.04. But this section is part of the MPEP directed to obviousness, not written description. See MPEP § 2144 (“Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103”). Patent Owner’s reliance on the MPEP’s examining guidelines for written description is also unavailing. See Prelim. Resp. 50–51 (citing MPEP § 2163(II)(A)(3)(a), and quoting “If a skilled artisan would have understood the inventor to be in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification, then the adequate description requirement is met.”). We preliminarily find that reversing the locations of the pivot member and opposed legs from those locations disclosed in the only embodiment described in detail in the specification represents more than a “nuance” of the claims. Instead, it represents a departure from the disclosed embodiment of Figure 1, a departure with no support in the actual written description in the grandparent application.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,235,486 - 3shape A/S / 3shape Inc. v. Align Technology, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jan 11, 2022 · IPR2021-01120 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 25, and 30 were obvious over Babayoff ’529 and Atiya.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“2. Summary Regarding Obviousness Challenge Because Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence persuasively rebut Petitioner’s assertion that the Ancestral Applications do not provide written description support for the challenged claims, Petitioner has not shown adequately that Babayoff ’529 is prior art to the challenged claims. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 25, and 30 would have been obvious over Babayoff ’529 and Atiya. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information presented in the record does not establish there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim of the patent ’151 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that the Petition is denied; and FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill is supported by expert testimony and appears consistent with the technology at issue, for purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“In response, Patent Owner objects that “Petitioners’ interpretation of the claims as requiring the use of unfiltered white light to determine depth data is plainly at odds with the claims themselves.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Patent Owner argues that “[t]his interpretation leads to a contradiction between the independent and dependent claims: the same light illuminating the intraoral structure would have to be simultaneously filtered (as recited in the dependent claims) and unfiltered (as Petitioners presume to be required by the independent claims).” Id. Patent Owner also suggests the possibility that the Petition’s arguments mean “the independent claims encompass using unfiltered white light to obtain depth data.” Id. at 7. We do understand the Petition’s arguments to mean that the independent claims encompass using unfiltered white light to illuminate an intraoral structure, not that the independent claims require using white light to illuminate an intraoral structure. And we agree with that understanding of the independent claims’ scope. Consistent with Patent Owner’s explanation, if we construed the independent claims to require using unfiltered white light to illuminate an intraoral structure, that would conflict directly with the dependent claims’ express requirement to use colored filters.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“2. Summary Regarding Obviousness Challenge Because Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence persuasively rebut Petitioner’s assertion that the Ancestral Applications do not provide written description support for the challenged claims, Petitioner has not shown adequately that Babayoff ’529 is prior art to the challenged claims. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 25, and 30 would have been obvious over Babayoff ’529 and Atiya.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,750,151 - Lti Flexible Products, Inc. D/B/A Boyd Corporation v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaInstitutedPTAB · Jan 11, 2022 · IPR2021-01189 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13, finding a reasonable likelihood that MacDonald anticipates claims 1–13 and that MacDonald with Ding renders claims 2, 3, and 7 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, and Sur-reply and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–13 of the ’728 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“figures and substantively identical specifications. See Pet. 16, 26; Prelim. Resp. 21; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 75–76. We agree with Petitioner that the Specifications of the parent applications, MacDonald, and the ’728 patent (“the common Specification”) do not disclose expressly the claimed pitch range of 5–500 microns. We also agree with Petitioner that the pitch range must be derived from the disclosed values of diameter of the pillars and spacing between pillars. Pet. 3, 18–22; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 98–112, 123–129. We further agree with Petitioner that none of the derived pitch ranges aligns perfectly with the claimed pitch range. Pet. 21, 23; Ex. 1012 ¶ 120. Petitioner presents sufficient argument and evidence that the common Specification may not provide sufficient “blaze marks” for the claimed pitch range and that the derived pitch ranges may not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed pitch range. Pet. 17–26; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 92– 140. Patent Owner disputes, at least, whether the common Specification provides adequate “blaze marks” and whether the derived pitch ranges would reasonably convey the claimed pitch range. Prelim. Resp. 11–18. The parties’ dispute presents a factual issue that would benefit from a fuller record developed at trial. Gen. Hospital Corp. v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., 888 F.3d 1368, 1371 (2018) (“Sufficiency of written description is a question of fact.”).” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artOther
“Petitioner contends that MacDonald is prior art under § 102(a)(1) because MacDonald was published a year before the filing date of the application that issued as the ’728 patent. Pet. 7. If the ’728 patent is entitled to the benefit of the filing dates of the PCT and ’111 applications (collectively, “the parent applications”), then MacDonald would not qualify as prior art, as argued by Patent Owner. Prelim. Resp. 27–28.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“3. Claims 1–13 Petitioner argues with citations to MacDonald and declarant testimony that, because MacDonald has the same figures and substantively same Specification, MacDonald anticipates independent claims 1 and 9. Pet. 26– 37, 53–58. In particular, for the claimed pitch range, Petitioner argues that, because MacDonald discloses pillar spacings between 1–500 microns and pillar diameters between 5–500 microns, MacDonald discloses, at least, two pitches of 6 microns and 253.5 microns, both of which are in the claimed pitch range. Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 176–178). For dependent claims 2–8 and 10–13, Petitioner argues with citations to MacDonald and declarant testimony that MacDonald discloses all their limitations. Id. at 37–53, 58– 62. Other than the arguments discussed above regarding written description and effective filing date, Patent Owner does not argue that Petitioner fails to show that MacDonald discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9. See generally Prelim. Resp. Patent Owner also does not provide separate arguments for the challenged dependent claims. See generally id. Based on the preliminary record, Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its anticipation challenge of dependent claims 1– 13.” slip op. at 20
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,309,728 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2020 · PGR2020-00063 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–9, finding the § 101 arguments previously presented to the Office and the other grounds insufficient to show likely unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. The Board recently explained a two-part framework that the Board uses under § 325(d): (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or 4 “ObjectLabel” (Ex. 1007, “ObjectLabel”). 5 US 2015/0153913 A1, issued June 4, 2015 (Ex. 1008, “Ballard”). substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). The Board further explained that “[i]f a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute.” Id. at 8–9. “If reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Id. at 9. The Becton, Dickinson6 factors, which address discretion to deny when a Petition presents the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office, are instructive. Id. (“[T]he Becton, Dickinson factors provide useful insight into how to apply the framework under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” (Footnote omitted)).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“(“the ’432 patent”). Supercell Oy (“Supercell”) filed a petition requesting post-grant review of claims 1–9 of the ’432 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). GREE, in turn, filed a preliminary response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). After considering the petition and the preliminary response, as well as all supporting evidence, we determine the petition does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’432 patent is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Thus, we do not institute post-grant review of claims 1–9 of the ’432 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“‘“the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.’” Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Rather, ‘the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had ‘possession’ of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.’” Id. (citing Ariad Pharms, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)).” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“information.” Id. at 7:34–41. In particular, Ross explains that “[t]he user may interact with the secondary, tertiary, etc., virtual reality content and then return his view back to the movie wherein the movie has been adjusted to reflect the user’s interaction with the secondary, tertiary, etc., virtual reality content.” Id. at 7:41–45. Ross explains further that “while a user views primary virtual reality content, system 10 may be configured to display a ‘pop-up’ cue indicating that additional virtual reality content (e.g., additional characters) is available in a different (e.g., secondary, tertiary, etc.) content area.” Id. at 7:46–50. Thus, we understand Ross to disclose a system wherein a user can turn their gaze from a primary area to a secondary, tertiary, etc., area to view content related to the content in the primary area. See Ross, 7:21–33 (“Responsive to the user turning his view from the primary virtual reality content . . . a sensory cue comprising . . . secondary, tertiary, etc., . . . may be displayed to the user.”). Further, we understand Ross to disclose a system wherein the user’s focus on an item in the primary area may activate a “popup” cue in the primary area directing the user to additional virtual reality content in a secondary, tertiary, etc., area. See id. at 7:46–50 (“[W]hile a user views primary virtual reality content, system 10 may be configured to display a ‘pop-up’ cue indicating that additional virtual reality content . . . is available in a different (e.g., secondary, tertiary, etc.) content area.”). We do not, however, understand Ross’ “pop-up” cue to be activated in a secondary, tertiary, etc. area based on the user’s gaze position moving to the second area from the first area as required by claims 1, 8, and 9. See id. Therefore, because Ross describes displaying a “pop-up” cue while a user is viewing primary virtual reality content (see Ross, 7:46–50), Petitioner does not show persuasively that Ross discloses that “a gaze position moving to the second area from the first area” is an “information providing condition.” Furthermore, Petitioner’s cited testimonial evidence does not explain sufficiently how Ross discloses the recited “information providing condition.” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 73. For the reasons above, Petitioner does not show adequately that Ross discloses an “information providing condition [that] is a condition of a gaze position moving to the second area from the first area.”” slip op. at 18
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,406,432
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.