- Freedom To Operate, Inc. v. Compass Pathfinder LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 22, 2022 · PGR2022-00018 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–23 because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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 arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that any of the claims challenged in the Petition are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“G. Remaining Arguments Patent Owner also argues we should deny the Petition for failure to identify all real parties-in-interest in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 31–44. Because we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that in this Decision.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an advanced degree (i.e., a Master’s degree with two or more years of experience, or a Ph.D.) in inorganic or organic chemistry, chemical engineering, pharmacology, or a related discipline” and “would be familiar with medicinal chemistry or pharmaceutical chemistry, and with analytical methods to characterize and differentiate solid forms of compounds, (‘DSC’) and thermogravimetric analysis (‘TGA’).” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1106 ¶ 38). Petitioner further contends that “[a]lternatively, one of ordinary skill could have less education and approximately five or more years of relevant experience.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. Absent opposition from Patent Owner, we adopt Petitioner’s definition because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (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 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, as it is most consistent with the intrinsic evidence. The claim language makes clear that “Polymorph A” is “characterized by” the specific peaks set forth in the claims. Ex. 1101, claims 1, 8, 16. Thus, regardless of the alleged conventional definition of a “polymorph,” urged by Petitioner, the inventors are entitled to act as their own lexicographers to define “Polymorph A” according to the recited peaks on the XRPD diffractogram. See Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 493 F.3d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“When a patentee defines a claim term, the patentee’s definition governs, even if it is contrary to the conventional meaning of the term.”). That the Specification consistently refers to “Polymorph A” as a proper noun and describes Polymorph A as “characterized by” the recited peaks in an XRPD diffractogram further highlights the inventors’ clear intent to act as their own lexicographer. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, 4:4–5:36; Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, 395 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“When a patentee acts away from their ordinary meaning, he must clearly express that intent in the written description.”). Finally, we agree with Patent Owner that the prosecution history of the parent ’257 patent is relevant to the construction of the claims of the ’259 patent, which is a continuation of the ’257 patent. Prelim. Resp. 6 (citing Iridescent Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 933 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Statements made during prosecution of a parent application are relevant to construing terms in a patent resulting from a continuation application if such statements relate to the subject matter of the claims being construed.”)). During prosecution of the parent ’257 patent application, the examiner rejected original claim 1 as indefinite because it did not define “Polymorph A,” and required one to “refer to the specification to determine what is Polymorph A.” Ex. 2133, 7. Patent Owner then amended the claims to define Polymorph A by adding the specific XRPD peaks recited in claim 1. Ex. 2134, 2; see also id. at 6. Thus, we find the intrinsic evidence supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,954,259 - Freedom To Operate, Inc. v. Compass Pathfinder LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 22, 2022 · PGR2022-00012 · APJ Tina E Hulse · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–23 because Petitioner did not show it was more likely than not that any challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which 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 arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that any of the claims challenged in the Petition are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had an advanced degree (i.e., a Master’s degree with two or more years of experience, or a Ph.D.) in inorganic or organic chemistry, chemical engineering, pharmacology, or a related discipline” and “would be familiar with medicinal chemistry or pharmaceutical chemistry, and with analytical methods to characterize and differentiate solid forms of compounds, particularly XRPD, but also including differential scanning calorimetry (‘DSC’) and thermogravimetric analysis (‘TGA’).” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 35). Petitioner further contends that “[a]lternatively, one of ordinary skill could have less education and approximately five or more years of relevant experience.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. Absent opposition from Patent Owner, we adopt Petitioner’s definition because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (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 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, as it is most consistent with the intrinsic evidence. The claim language makes clear that “Polymorph A” is “characterized by” the specific peaks set forth in claim 1. Ex. 1001, claim 1. Thus, regardless of the alleged conventional definition of a “polymorph,” urged by Petitioner, the inventors are entitled to act as their own lexicographers to define “Polymorph A” according to the recited peaks on the XRPD diffractogram. See Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Universal Avionics a claim term, the patentee’s definition governs, even if it is contrary to the conventional meaning of the term.”). That the Specification consistently refers to “Polymorph A” as a proper noun and describes Polymorph A as “characterized by” the recited peaks in an XRPD diffractogram further highlights the inventors’ clear intent to act as their own lexicographer. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:4–5:36; Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, 395 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“When a patentee acts as his own lexicographer in redefining the meaning of particular claim terms away from their ordinary meaning, he must clearly express that intent in the written description.”). Finally, during prosecution of the ’257 patent application, the examiner rejected original claim 1 as indefinite because it did not define “Polymorph A,” and required one to “refer to the specification to determine what is Polymorph A.” Ex. 1060, 7. Patent Owner then amended the claims to define Polymorph A by adding the specific XRPD peaks recited in claim 1. Ex. 1062, 2; see also id. at 6. Thus, we find the intrinsic evidence supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Having considered the parties’ respective arguments and evidence, we find Patent Owner has the better position. Although we agree with Petitioner that some degree of experimental error should be factored into the specific peaks of a diffractogram, the claim language already does so by expressly reciting a variance of “±0.1°2θ.” See Ex. 1001, claim 1. Construing the claims to include an additional degree of variance would effectively read out the “±0.1°2θ” limitation of the claims. See Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”). Moreover, we note that the express recitation of a specific variance distinguishes the ’257 patent claims from the claims of the Astrazeneca cases cited by Petitioner, which did not recite such a variance. See Pet. 11–12. In addition, the Specification consistently refers to a variance of ±0.1°2θ whenever it refers to peaks on a diffractogram. See generally Ex. 1001, 3:58–5:24. Petitioner acknowledges that the claims recite a range of peak locations, but argues that the Specification “does not explain the basis for the claimed range.” Pet. 10. Petitioner, however, does not explain why the Specification would need to explain that basis, particularly if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that ±0.1°2θ is an acceptable variance for XRPD.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,947,257 - PTAB · Nov 20, 2019 · CBM2018-00006 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its final written decision that claims 1–12 are unpatentable under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“on this particular issue is timely. Patent Owner has argued that “the institution should never have occurred” and that institution should have been denied outright. Id. However, our Decision on Institution (Paper 19, “Dec.”) was entered on June 22, 2018. Any request for rehearing of our determinations regarding the forum selection clause in that Decision should have been filed 14 days from the entry of that decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1). As we noted in the FWD, after institution of the covered business method patent review (“CBM review”), the parties did not present any additional evidence or arguments regarding the forum selection clause issue. FWD 8 (“In the post-institution briefing, neither party has added arguments or evidence to the record regarding this issue.”). Indeed, the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 28, “PO Resp.”) and Sur-Reply (Paper 39, “Sur.”) and Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 31, “Reply”) did not discuss forum selection. For completeness and clarity of the record, we reiterated our” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“be instructive, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, that decision has not been designated precedential. Moreover, taking into consideration the discussion by the panel in Global Tel*Link, we are not persuaded that our determination misapprehended or overlooked any arguments or evidence in” slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“the abstract idea. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that this is clear error or deprived Patent Owner of the opportunity to defend its position. Indeed, Patent Owner does not explain why the “rules for playing a bonus wagering game” is substantively different from “allowing bonus wagers in a wagering game,” or, more importantly, the basis for Patent Owner’s contention that this is a “fundamental change.” See Reh’g Req. 11.” slip op. at 11
§ 101 eligibilityPatents in suitUS 7,451,987 - Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 16, 2018 · CBM2016-00095 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103(a) over Tymes; unpatentability under § 112, ¶ 1 was not shown.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments, as they conflate “power” with “transmission range”—the claim term recites “low-power,” not “low-transmission range.” We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed construction would import improperly a limitation into the claims, and we credit Mr. James T. Geier’s testimony (Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 34−39) as it consistent with the other evidence of record before us. We address below each of Patent Owner’s arguments in turn. First, Patent Owner argues that “the claim language itself indicates that the claimed low-power transceiver transmits low-power signals,” citing the language of claim 2, “wherein the low-power signal comprises a logical IP address.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:60–61). However, “the low-power signal” does not necessarily require a transceiver to transmit signals having a limited transmission range. Patent Owner does not explain meaningfully, or provide persuasive evidence to show, how a “low-power signal” is necessarily related to the transmission range of a transceiver. Consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, “a low-power transceiver” refers to a transceiver that consumes less power, e.g., by transmitting and receiving low power signals. Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 34−39.” slip op. at 23
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“However, Patent Owner’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The purported problems that arose with the development of networks hosting wireless device—unlawful interruption of that data, interference, and contention—are addressed by using an extremely low-power transmitter. Ex. 1001, 5:65−6:11. As discussed above, the challenged claims recite a generic “low-power transceiver,” not an extremely low-power transmitter. Additionally, the alleged problem of transforming data to a different protocol is addressed by an unclaimed feature, as the ’842 patent itself recognizes that the invention is not necessarily limited to certain protocol or requires a protocol conversion. Id. at 13:55−14:5. Moreover, the challenged claims do not requires a protocol conversion or recite a device for converting data from one protocol to a different protocol. Rather, they recite generically a “network of addressable devices.” Patent Owner’s argument that the claims are “directed to an improvement in communication technology between remote devices that are accessible by wireless communication and a central location via a circuit interface” is unavailing. Significantly, the claims are not directed to a new type of transceiver, interface circuit, or controller to establish a communication link between a remote device and the central location. Instead, the claims are directed to transmitting data between locations using conventional or generic computer components. The challenged claims essentially recite a device for communicating information that comprises: (1) a low-power transceiver for transmitting or receiving data; (2) an interface circuit for communicating with a central 33 location; and (3) a controller for establishing a communication link. The Specification confirms that these features were known in the art. Ex. 1001, 5:23–25, 6:62–64 (“As is well known by those skilled in the art, a variety of transducers can perform this functionality adequately.”), 10:13–15 (“[T]he controller 256 may be a general purpose microprocessor or microcontroller.”), 10:21–23 (“The interface 258 within the transceiver 270 is designed to interface with this typical/standard telephone circuitry 263.”), 10:23–26 (“The specific implementation of the circuitry of [interface] 258 will be appreciated by persons skilled in the art and need not be described in detail herein.”). Indeed, the FCC Bulletin also confirms that low-power wireless transmitters were “used virtually everywhere,” noting that “[c]ordless phones, baby monitors, garage door openers, wireless home security systems, keyless automobile entry systems and hundreds of other types of common electronic equipment rely on such transmitters to function.” Ex. 2001, 1. Moreover, the ’842 patent itself recognizes that the communication link between the remote device and central location can be established by initiating a phone call over a telephone line that is part of the public-switched telephone network. Ex. 1001, 2:34−38. There is no dispute that such a communication link was known in the art. Id. at 10:21−26.” slip op. at 33
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“38 For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 of the ’842 patent are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Whether the challenged claims lack a patent-eligible inventive concept Turning to the second step in the analysis, we look for additional elements that can “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea. That is, we determine whether the claims include an “inventive concept,” i.e., an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. The additional elements must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 768 S. Ct. at 1297−98. Here, Petitioner argues that claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 are unpatentable because they are “directed only to an abstract idea with nothing more added than generic computing components and ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity’ previously performed in the field (both individually and as an ordered combination in the claims).” Pet. 23–24 (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). According to Petitioner, the challenged claims “recite the concept of establishing a communication route between two points ‘as performed by a generic computer,’ without disclosing any ‘novel or unusual’ improvement to ‘the functioning of the computer itself’ or any ‘advance in computer technology that makes the performance of [routine] functions more effective.” Id. at 24 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358–60). 39” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“As Petitioner notes (Pet. 66−68; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 353−366), Tymes discloses “an improved, low-cost, low-power, data communication network in which a number of remote terminal units are able to send packets of data to a central station, and . . . to receive acknowledge signals and data from the central station.” Ex. 1005, 2:36−56 (emphasis added). Tymes describes that the central station includes a number of base stations connected to a central computer. Id. at 3:21−25. As shown in Figure 1, the network includes base stations 12−14, each of which “is coupled by an RF link to a number of remote units.” Id. at 4:61−5:44. The RF link is used for sending “data packets from the remote terminals to the base stations and return.” Id. at 3:48−51 (emphasis added), 6:66–7:2. In fact, Tymes teaches that the “advantage of this type of RF data link is that a band may be used which does not require site licensing by the F.C.C.” Id. at 3:55−59. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that “low-power” refers to only the remote terminals, Tymes describes a low-power network that includes base stations. As Petitioner also notes (Pet. 66–67, n.38), Tymes teaches an “indoor” limited range network and an RF data link “usable without site licensing under F.C.C. regulations, so that the expense and delays incident to such licensing are eliminated or minimized.” Ex. 1005, 2:36–56. Significantly, Tymes discloses that the optimum frequency is in the 902−928 MHz range 54 for the RF transceivers in the base stations. Id. at 6:66–7:2, 13:58–61, 18:1−3. The FCC limits the power for unlicensed transmitters, and the power limit under the FCC regulations is less than or equal to one watt for the disclosed 902–928 MHz range. Ex. 1010, 217; Ex. 1017, 7:9–11, 31–34. Mr. Geier testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have understood that an indoor communications network as taught by Tymes requires only a limited range (e.g., 1 mile or less (the length of a storage facility)), so that high-powered transceivers would be unnecessary and disfavored,” and that such an artisan “would have considered a transmission of 1 Watt to be a ‘low-power’ transmission, with a limited range of approximately 1 mile.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 358−359. Mr. Geier also testifies that such an artisan would have had a reason to use low-power transceivers in the base stations so that they are usable indoors without licensing under the FCC regulations. Id. We credit Mr. Geier’s testimony as it is consistent with Tymes’ teachings and other evidence. Ex. 1005, 2:36–56, 6:66–7:2, 13:58−61, 18:1−3, Figs. 1, 3, 10; Ex. 1010, 21; Ex. 1017, 7:9−11, 29−34 (explaining that “unlicensed systems using conventional modulation techniques attain ranges on the order of 500−1000 feet” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 54
Patent outcomesUS 8,908,842 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,908,842 - PTAB · May 12, 2015 · IPR2014-00242 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled claims 1–3, 5, and 6 and denied substitute claims 7–11 because the Patent Owner failed to establish written-description support for claim 10 and patentability over prior art for claims 7–9 and 11.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“Unlike examination, entry of the proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review is not automatic. As the moving party, Patent Owner must establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner bears the burden to show, inter alia, that a reasonable number of substitute claims is proposed, there is no broadening of scope, the proposed claims are supported adequately by the written description of the application as filed originally, and the proposed claims are patentable over the prior art. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121; Idle Free Sys. Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., Case IPR2012-00027, slip op. at 5–6 (PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper 26) (“Idle Free”). We address each of these requirements in turn.” slip op. at 10
- 112 supportDenied
“its Motion to Amend to set forth “[t]he support in the original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended,” and “[t]he support in an earlier-filed disclosure for each claim for which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is sought.” The test for written description support 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.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The purpose of the written description requirement is to convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).” slip op. at 12
- ScopeDecided for patent owner
“2. No Broadening of Scope Proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii). In its Motion to Amend, Patent Owner proposes claim 7 as a substitute for claim 1, claim 8 as a substitute for claim 2, claim 9 as a substitute for claim 3, claim 10 as a substitute for claim 5, and claim 11 as a substitute for claim 6. Mot. 1–5. Each claim includes all of the limitations of the corresponding challenged claim for which it is a substitute, and adds additional limitations. Id. No limitations from the challenged claims were deleted in the proposed substitute claims. Patent Owner asserts that the proposed substitute claims do not enlarge the scope of the claims of the ’047 patent. See Mot. 1. Petitioner does not dispute this assertion (“patent owner’s proposed substitute claims . . . add ancillary features”). Opp. 1. We are persuaded that each of the proposed substitute claims does not enlarge the scope of each of the challenged patent claims it intends to replace.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Decision to Institute, we determined that no explicit construction was necessary for any of the claim terms beyond their ordinary and customary meanings. Dec. to Inst. 8–9. Neither party has challenged that determination, and based on the record adduced during trial, we see no reason to provide an express construction for any term. For the proposed substitute claims, Patent Owner states that: Like the terms in the original claims, all of [the newly added claim terms in the proposed substitute claims] are simple [claim terms] whose ordinary meaning applies and for which no construction is required, with the possible exception of “member” and “group.” As explained in the specification (Ex. 1) at 3:2–4, “The present invention comprises a method . . . for allowing on-line communications with members of a group of recipients for whom the invention has been implemented.” In the context of proposed independent claim [7], the claimed invention requires that “said first computer system storing information about said plurality of members in a database.” Thus, in the context of the proposed amended claims[,] a “group” is a group of a plurality of members for whom the first computer system has stored information in a database. Mot. 7. Petitioner does not propose alternative constructions for the claim terms “member” or “group.” We cannot discern how the constructions proffered by Patent Owner add any clarity to the terms “member” and “group,” which are simple and commonly understood terms. We decline to provide an express construction for either “member” or “group.”” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites AlicePatents in suitUS 8,499,047
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.