- Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 6, 2015 · CBM2014-00006 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 25–29 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 25 is also unpatentable as obvious over Havinis ’931 and Leonhardt, and Landgren and Leonhardt.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“reasoning with rational underpinning to combine Havinis ’931 and Leonhardt. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). For instance, Petitioner states: [a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify the system of Havinis ’931 to include Leonhardt’s location access policies, in order to further Havinis ’931’s goals of managing positioning requests sent by Location Applications such that location services can be tailored individually to meet the needs of the mobile device user. Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:33–40). Relying on Dr. Cox, Petitioner adds that this modification “would have been nothing more than the application of a known method of privacy management to achieve a predictable result.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 76. As explained in our Decision to Institute, we are persuaded the rationale set forth by Petitioner and Dr. Cox is reasonable. See Dec. 24–25. Subsequent to our preliminary finding, Patent Owner has provided no evidence or argument to the contrary. Thus, after once again evaluating Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have been obvious to combine the relied upon teachings of Havinis ’931 and Leonhardt. We conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 of the ’752 Patent would have been obvious over Havinis ’931 and Leonhardt.” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the ’752 patent fails to provide sufficient written description support for the notifying limitation. Petitioner’s only evidence that the notifying limitation is not sufficiently supported is its argument that the ’752 patent fails to explicitly describe notifying the wireless device that access to the location information was denied. Pet. 44–45. Petitioner proffers testimony from Dr. Cox parroting, almost word for word, the argument in Petitioner’s brief. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–36. This argument and testimony, however, does not speak to the correct standard—whether the ’752 specification “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Moreover, “the disclosure as originally filed does not . . . have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue,” nor must it describe “every conceivable and possible future embodiment of [the] invention.” Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). We agree with Patent Owner, that the ’752 patent broadly describes notifying the wireless device at any time during the described process. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 9:26–29 (“the system described herein is for a subscriber to receive a notification on their wireless communications device whenever a location request is made by any client application”). Moreover, as pointed out by Petitioner, the ’752 patent describes sending “denied access” messages to client applications. See Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:40–42). Based on these disclosures, we are persuaded that the ’752 patent provides broad support for providing notifications of various messages to different elements of the system at multiple points in the described process. Petitioner has not pointed to anything in the ’752 patent specification that clearly limits what messages can be sent to the various elements or when they can be sent. In fact, as Patent Owner points out, the Provisional Application explicitly contemplates “initiat[ing] a dialogue with the subscriber regarding permission for a location request.” Ex. 1020, 22. Although Petitioner complains that this disclosure does not describe how a dialogue would occur or how messages are relayed (Reply 5), we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would disbelieve, based on the entirety of the ’752 patent disclosure, that the inventor had possession of sending an access denied message to the wireless device at the appropriate time during the process. Thus, we are persuaded that the ’752 patent “provides ample support for the breadth” of the notifying limitation and does not “unambiguously limit” its meaning to a narrower embodiment (e.g., notifying the wireless device only when a request has been made). Cordis, 339 F.3d at 1365. Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the ’752 patent fails to support the notifying limitation.” slip op. at 20
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, the abstract idea of controlling access to location information using a subscriber profile. The preambles and all claim limitations of both claims support this abstract idea, and the ’752 patent repeatedly discloses that the invention is directed to controlling access to location information. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:14–19, 1:60–2:7. Patent Owner has not identified any portion of the ’752 patent inconsistent with this abstract idea, and we are persuaded that the identified abstract idea is similar to the kind of “organizing human activity” at issue in Bilski and Alice. See, e.g., Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (comparing “methods and systems for managing a game of Bingo” to the kind of “organizing human activity” at issue in Bilski and Alice).” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,203,752 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,203,752 - Apple, Inc. / Domino’S Pizza, Inc. et al. v. Ameranth, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 20, 2015 · CBM2014-00013 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 12 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 3, 6–9, 11, and 13–16 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish their claimed features were conventional.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Petitioner states that the claimed linking is a “classic example[] of manual tasks that cannot be rendered patent-eligible merely by performing them with a computer.” Reply 15. However, Petitioner fails to provide sufficient evidence to support its statement. See Pet. 49–66; Reply 9–15. Petitioner provides insufficient evidence to establish that a menu having the functionality to perform the claimed linking from a GUI on a hand-held device, was well-known or conventional and merely require a general purpose computer. See id. Upon review, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3 and 11 recite patent-ineligible subject matter.” slip op. at 37
- Skill levelOther
“B. Claim Construction The Board interprets claims of unexpired patents using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Prior to construing the relevant claim limitations, we turn to some initial matters raised by Patent Owner. First, Patent Owner argues that we must construe “the entirety of the challenged claims” (PO Resp. 31), and proposes constructions for some, but not all, limitations of the challenged claims (see id. at 34–36). Claim construction, however, “is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101.” Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), L.L.C., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See, e.g., Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). Below, we construe the limitations that are relevant to the issues of patent-eligibility discussed below. We determine that all other claim limitations need no explicit construction.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). A preamble, however, is not limiting where the claim body defines a structurally complete invention and the preamble only states a purpose or intended use for the invention. Id. slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We are persuaded by Petitioner that the broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification of the term CPU is the computational and control unit of a computer. Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the Specification, which describes that the system of the ’733 patent uses typical hardware elements in the form of a computer workstation and that “a typical workstation platform includes hardware such as a central processing unit (‘CPU’), e.g., a Pentium® microprocessor.” Ex. 1033, col. 6, ll. 52–54; see also id. at col. 6, l. 65 (“a CPU, e.g., Pentium® microprocessor”). Further, Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the Specification, which as discussed above, discloses using a desktop PC to generate and download menus to a connected handheld device (see id. at col. 7, l. 38–col. 10, l. 15), as well as, discloses the use of a central back-office server (e.g., see id. at col. 2, ll. 37–40). Patent Owner’s proposed construction improperly reads into the claims the central back-office server. See Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249 (explaining that extraneous features should not be read into the claims). For these reasons, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the Specification, of CPU is the computational and control unit of a computer.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 6,982,733 mixedClaim construction§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · MayoPatents in suitUS 6,982,733
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.