• Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 29, 2024 · IPR2022-01358 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 18, 19, and 21–28 are unpatentable as obvious over the four asserted combinations of Park and Kim, with Hileman, Mault, or Pugliese where specified.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner offers a similar description, asserting that a POSITA “is someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science or the like” and that either experience or training can make up for a lack of the other. Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 17–20). We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record (Ex. 1003 ¶ 24) and consistent with the disclosure in the ’067 patent and the references cited in the Petition. Patent Owner’s definition is “not materially different” from Petitioner’s definition. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 20 (Patent Owner’s declarant acknowledging such). Thus, our analysis and findings would be the same under either sides’ proposal.” slip op. at 8

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the institution decision, we agreed with and applied the same MDAS construction adopted by the district court in the Delaware litigation. Dec. 12–14. That is, a “mobile delivery agent system” is “a mobile system that includes at least a device to capture video or still images and a device set up to communicate with a remote server.” Ex. 1034, 1. To the extent there was any substantive disagreement with this preliminary construction, we invited the parties to present their alternative positions at trial. See Dec. 14. Neither party has done so. See Resp. 13 (applying same MDAS construction); Reply 1–5 (addressing other claim construction issues, but not raising any issue with the MDAS construction). Accordingly, we apply the same construction of “mobile delivery agent system” here. ii. “real-time” The term “real-time” is not recited in the independent claims, but does appear in some of the challenged dependent claims. See Ex. 1001, 10:8– 14:16 (claims 14 and 18). In the institution decision, we agreed with and applied the same construction adopted by the district court in the Delaware litigation. Dec. 14–15. That is, that “real-time” has its ordinary meaning, which is “data that is passed along as it is gathered.” Ex. 1034, 2. Neither party has proposed an alternative construction. See Resp. 13 (applying same “real-time” construction); Pet. 14 (asserting that “the terms of the Challenged Claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning”). Accordingly, we apply the same construction of “real-time” here.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, the Specification does not exclusively equate an “acquisition request” with a shopping or purchase request. See Resp. 10–12. Rather, the Specification repeatedly uses the phrasing “purchase or otherwise acquire” to indicate that a delivery agent may acquire goods by means other than purchasing or shopping. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:4–6 (“[T]he user specifies the exact location from which the selected delivery agent is to purchase or otherwise acquire the product, such as a retail store location.”); id. at 7:24–26 (“If the product is approved at 120, the delivery agent will purchase or otherwise acquire the product on behalf of the customer at 121 and deliver the product.”); id. at 2:15–18 (“[T]he user provides the service provider with information regarding the type of product desired and the shopping or acquisition location from which the user desires to purchase or otherwise obtain the product.”). Patent Owner’s argument that the Specification uses the “word ‘or’ to refer to things that are synonymous to each other” is not persuasive. See Resp. 10; Sur-reply 4 (citing Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingeniosh, LLC, IPR2022- 00202, Paper 29, 18–19 (PTAB May 19, 2023)). As noted above, the Specification uses the phrasing “purchase or otherwise acquire.” Ex. 1001, 5:4–6, 7:24–26 (emphasis added); see also id. at 2:15–18 (similar). By including the adverb “otherwise,” the Specification makes clear that purchase and acquire are not used synonymously, but rather that acquiring is broader and encompasses other ways of obtaining a product. See Ex. 1039, 1 (“otherwise” means “in a different way or manner”).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner has also articulated a sufficient rationale for combining these elements of Park and Kim. See Pet. 20–23 (citing exhibits). Kim identifies a problem with purchasing a product from a website, i.e., that the product delivered to the customer may not match the images or videos of that product on the website. Ex. 1006, 2. Kim teaches this problem can be overcome by having the delivery service provider operate a MDAS to transmit an image of the actual product in real time to the customer so that after receiving the image the customer can send instructions back to the delivery service provider confirming that is the product they delivered. Id. We credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that, based on these teachings, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate those same steps into Park’s system and methodology to “enhance the reliability of the delivery,” “increase customer satisfaction,” and “save[] resources” by preventing the delivery of goods that, upon viewing, the customer might reject. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–56. Moreover, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings because Park’s system was already configured to send live video and images to the customer’s computer. Ex. 1003 ¶ 57. Indeed, while Park primarily discusses transmission of video and images of the delivery process to the customer, it expressly teaches that its objective is to “allow customers to interactively view, in real-time, the progress of his order, from reception to compilation to delivery though the route taken by the delivery agent.” Ex. 1005, 4:26–32 (emphasis added). Incorporating Kim’s teachings regarding elements 1.5–1.7 would further this objective, allowing the customer to interactively view images of the actual products compiled for delivery and send instructions back to the delivery agent regarding those products prior to delivery. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 57 (explaining that the combination allows Park’s system to perform the same intended functionality “in a more reliable way”). Accordingly, Petitioner has shown that it would have been obvious to” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,115,067 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,115,067
• Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 29, 2024 · IPR2022-01359 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Park, Kim, and Williams; claims 11–13 are also unpatentable over those references with Hileman.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner offers a similar description, asserting that a POSITA “is someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science or the like” and that either experience or training can make up for a lack of the other. Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 17–20). We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record (Ex. 1003 ¶ 24) and consistent with the disclosure in the ’191 patent and the references cited in the Petition. Patent Owner’s definition is “not materially different” from Petitioner’s definition. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 20 (Dr. Mitzenmacher acknowledging such). Thus, our analysis and findings would be the same under either sides’ proposal.” slip op. at 9

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ii. “real-time” In the institution decision, we agreed with and applied the same construction adopted by the district court in the Delaware litigation. Dec. 14–15. That is, that “real-time” has its ordinary meaning, which in this context is “data that is passed along as it is gathered.” Ex. 1034, 2. Notably, this is the same construction Patent Owner advocated for in the Delaware litigation. See Ex. 1035, 4. Nevertheless, Patent Owner now seeks to add to that construction, urging that the district court “accepted” that the term “does not include any ‘intentional delay’ in the transmission.” Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1035, 22, 26); see also Sur-reply 16–17 (essentially same). Although the district court considered “intentional delay” in the course of construing “real time,” it did not include the additional language Patent Owner proposes in its construction. See Ex. 1035, 2. Moreover, the district court stated it “sees no reason that a ‘real-time’ transmission of data could not both involve no inherent delay and permit a system that requires multiple ‘clicks’ to operate.” Id. at 25 (emphasis added). In addition, the district court quoted from a technical dictionary, which provided: The basic definition of real-time data is that it is data that is not kept or stored, but is passed along to the end user as quickly as it is gathered. It is important to note that real-time data does not mean that the data gets to the user instantly. There may be any number of bottlenecks related to the data collection infrastructure, the bandwidth between various parties, or even just the slowness of the end user’s computer. Real-time data does not promise data within a certain number of microseconds. It just means that the data is not designed to be kept back from its eventual use as it is collected. Id. at 26 (citing “Technopedia”). In other words, the district court contemplated that real-time data” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, the Specification does not exclusively equate an “acquisition request” with a shopping or purchase request. See Resp. 10–12. Rather, the Specification repeatedly uses the phrasing “purchase or otherwise acquire” to indicate that a delivery agent may acquire goods by means other than purchasing or shopping. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:4–6 (“[T]he user specifies the exact location from which the selected delivery agent is to purchase or otherwise acquire the product, such as a retail store location.”); id. at 7:24–26 (“If the product is approved at 120, the delivery agent will purchase or otherwise acquire the product on behalf of the customer at 121 and deliver the product.”); id. at 2:15–18 (“[T]he user provides the service provider with information regarding the type of product desired and the shopping or acquisition location from which the user desires to purchase or otherwise obtain the product.”). Patent Owner’s argument that the Specification uses the “word ‘or’ to refer to things that are synonymous to each other” is not persuasive. See Resp. 10; Sur-reply 4 (citing Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingeniosh, LLC, IPR2022- 00202, Paper 29, 18–19 (PTAB May 19, 2023)). As noted above, the Specification uses the phrasing “purchase or otherwise acquire.” Ex. 1001, 5:4–6, 7:24–26 (emphasis added); see also id at 2:15–18 (similar). By including the adverb “otherwise,” the Specification makes clear that purchase and acquire are not used synonymously, but rather that acquiring is broader and encompasses other ways of obtaining a product. See Ex. 1039, 1 (“otherwise” means “in a different way or manner”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner has also articulated a sufficient rationale for combining these elements of Park and Kim. See Pet. 22–25 (citing exhibits). Kim identifies a problem with purchasing a product from a website, i.e., that the product delivered to the customer may not match the images or videos of that product on the website. Ex. 1006, 2. Kim teaches this problem can be overcome by having the delivery service provider operate a MDAS to transmit an image of the actual product in real time to the customer so that after receiving the image the customer can send instructions back to the delivery service provider confirming that is the product they delivered. Id. We credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that, based on these teachings, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate those same steps into Park’s system and methodology to “enhance the reliability of the delivery,” “increase customer satisfaction,” and “save[] resources” by preventing the delivery of goods that, upon viewing, the customer might reject. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–67. Moreover, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings because Park’s system was already configured to send live video and images to the customer’s computer. Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. Indeed, while Park primarily discusses transmission of video and images of the delivery process to the customer, it expressly teaches that its objective is to “allow customers to interactively view, in real-time, the progress of his order, from reception to compilation to delivery though the route taken by the delivery agent.” Ex. 1005, 4:26–32 (emphasis added). reach Petitioner’s backup argument that this “clause . . . is a non-limiting statement of intended purpose.” See Reply 15–17; Tr. 29:12–30:6 (Petitioner acknowledging this is a “backup position”). Incorporating Kim’s teachings regarding elements 1.3–1.5 would further this objective, allowing the customer to interactively view images of the actual products compiled for delivery and, if acceptable, send approval for the delivery agent to purchase and deliver those goods. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 68 (explaining that the combination allows Park’s system to perform the same intended functionality “in a more reliable way”).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 9,202,191 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,202,191
• Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00950 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution

  Instituted inter partes review of claims 1–22 on all petitioned grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Markel – to accomplish Markel’s goal of a concealed electrode – is a reasonably sufficient basis or reason to combine the references. On this record, Petitioner demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reason to apply Nissilä’s electrode structure having a distinct exterior surface to the teachings of Markel because of the similarities in electrode structure and to achieve a stated goal of Markel. Nissilä’s electrode structure uses an external layer of “metal, electrically conductive plastic or a similar conductive material.” Ex. 1006, 5:32–37; Ex. 1003 ¶ 355 (“both references disclose an intermediate conductive material made of conductive plastic”). Petitioner has shown this structure could be adopted by Markel’s “hidden” electrode having a main body portion formed from conductive plastic and a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to achieve Markel’s stated goal of an electrode that is substantially concealed (or hidden) from a user. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 354. Even if a goal of Nissilä’s device is for the user to be aware of the electrodes to place them on their chest, as Patent Owner alleges, Petitioner shows that Markel’s concealment objective could be suitably achieved by use of Nissilä’s structure, even if Nissilä does not share a similar concealment objective. Id. ¶ 355 (“Markel’s hidden electrode is desirable because it increases aesthetics of the device while protecting the electrode from bumps or other damage.”). Based on the record before us, Petitioner has also shown sufficiently that a POSITA would be motivated to combine Markel and Nissilä to satisfy limitations [1.c.i], [1.c.ii], and [1.c.iii].” slip op. at 41

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ recitations are similar in scope. Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in education. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with both the scope of the claimed invention and the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that our decision would be the same adopting either proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to the preamble “[a]n electronic device for detecting a user’s cardiac signal,” as recited in elements [1.pre] and [15.pre], Petitioner submits that the language provides antecedent basis that defines language in the claim body. For example, [1.pre] and [15.pre] each recite “a user’s cardiac signal,” which is referred back to later in the claim bodies as “the user’s cardiac signal” . . . The phrase “a user” in [1.pre] and [15.pre] is referred back to in the claim bodies as part of “the user’s skin’s contact” . . . As another example, [15.pre] recites “An electronic device,” which is referred back to later in the claim body as “the electronic device” . . . Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the language “An electronic device for detecting a user’s cardiac signal” in [1.pre] and [15.pre] is limiting and should receive its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). We find Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the preamble of claims 1 and 15 persuasive. Petitioner has shown that the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, and is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,076,257
• Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00949 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 11–20 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Kim anticipates or renders obvious at least claims 11, 14, 16, and 19.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), 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 arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “Our Trial Practice Guide explains that, as is the case here, for parallel petitions challenging the same patent “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” CTPG 59. The CTPG also recognizes “that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” Id. The CTPG provides some exemplary reasons for multiple petitions, for instance “when the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id. The CTPG further compels a petitioner filing multiple petitions to identify: (1) a ranking of the petitions in the order in which it wishes the Board to consider the merits, if the Board uses its explanation of the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Id. at 60. We focus our analysis on part (2) and “why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions.” Id.” slip op. at 23

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “C. Claim Construction We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, at this stage in the proceeding, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner indicate that any claim terms require construction. See generally, Petition; Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision where no claim terms are in dispute we need not explicitly construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’619 patent would have been a person with a working knowledge of physiological monitoring technologies, a Bachelor of Science degree in an academic discipline emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software technologies, and training or at least one to two years of related work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological monitoring technologies. Pet. 8 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–38). Petitioner also asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not expressly address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’619 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,866,619
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00831 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the sole design claim would have been obvious over any asserted primary reference.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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 arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of the challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claim. slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “different, but not incompatible. On one hand, Petitioner proffers a person with a degree in industrial/product design who consults with a person of ordinary skill in the art having an electrical engineering, or similar degree. On the other hand, Patent Owner proffers a person having “a degree in Industrial Design or Mechanical Engineering, and at least two years of professional experience creating Industrial Designs of consumer products.” Prelim. Resp. 3. Considering that this is a design for an electronic “charger,” we find that both parties’ assertions as to the designer of ordinary skill appropriately include engineering and industrial design experience well-suited to a robust understanding of the function and aesthetics of charger devices. And, we do not find it out of the ordinary, as Petitioner contends, that a designer of ordinary skill would have collaborated with other technical professionals in designing such products. We also note that, under the present record, our analysis of this case would be the same under either party’s definition of the designer of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “In this case, a verbal description of the claimed design is helpful to our analysis. Petitioner’s claim construction, particularly as it erroneously calls for certain elements to be “factored out,” is too general, and does not adequately address the overall ornamental visual impression of the claimed charger. See Pet. 14–30. With some exceptions, we find Patent Owner’s claim construction the more persuasive and consistent with the appropriate scope and overall ornamentality of the claimed charger. Prelim. Resp. 3–10. Our claim construction, below, is based on, and paraphrased to some extent, from Patent Owner’s proposed construction: Considering the overall visual impression of the claimed charger as shown in Figures 1–11 of the ’131 patent, the charger has an overall appearance of a compact ice hockey puck shape having a top face with a circular recess that evokes a contemporary appearance. The claimed design includes an overall cylindrical shape, with a circular shape that is visible in plan and bottom views. The top face is dominated by a prominent circular recess that is inset relative to a flat ring having a distinct proportional width relative to the circular recess. The overall cylindrical shape has a distinctive ratio of width (e.g., diameter) to height that, as shown in the figures of the claimed design, evoking the overall appearance of a compact ice hockey puck shape. The overall cylindrical shape includes non-orthogonal transitional edges (e.g., beveled or curved edges) between the sidewall and the top and bottom faces which contributes to the charger’s overall compact ice hockey puck appearance. The featureless flat bottom surface and sidewall are shown as continuous, unbroken, and uninterrupted by features that distract from the continuity of the design, and also contribute to the charger’s overall compact ice hockey puck appearance.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “’131 patent compared with Lee, we are persuaded that Lee is not an appropriate primary reference. While we agree that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the front face of the claimed charger and Lee as similar in appearance, a designer of ordinary skill in the art would consider not just the front face of the designs, but the overall appearance of the designs as a whole. See Borden, 90 F.3d at 1574 (The obviousness “inquiry focuses on the visual impression of the claimed design as a whole and not on selected individual features.”). the front face of the claimed design, but the smooth uninterrupted cylinder walls that seamlessly transition to a flat, planer, bottom surface that is a cleaner and more contemporary appearance from Lee’s stepped sidewall and raised yellow ring on the bottom face of Lee’s charger. The cylindrical characteristics of the claimed design evoke a stocky ice hockey puck shaped appearance different from the Lee’s narrower stacked disc shaped design. We find that the cumulative visually apparent differences of the sidewall, bottom face and overall cylindrical ice hockey puck shaped appearance and proportions of the claimed charger outweigh any similarity of the front faces, and thus we are not persuaded that Lee’s charger is a primary reference “the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design.” Rosen, 673 F.2d at 391.” slip op. at 37

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
• Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00865 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–19, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 14 are obvious over Carr and Lauka.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we determine that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least claims 1 and 14 of the ’465 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Carr and Lauka. And because Instacart demonstrates that at least one claim of the ’465 patent meets the threshold for institution, we institute an inter partes review of all claims as challenged in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a),(c); SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of the ’465 patent is instituted; and” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art would have been “someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like” and that “industry experience can make up for a lack of technical training, and more education can make up for a lack of industry experience.” Prelim. Resp. 29. Consumeron’s definition appears to overlap significantly with Instacart’s definition. Accordingly, for purposes of institution, we adopt the level of skill in the art as articulated by Instacart.” slip op. at 5

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

    “product ordered by the customer is available and does not contemplate a scenario where the product is unavailable or otherwise describe the action to be taken if the product is unavailable. See Pet. 17–22. We agree, at least based on the preliminary record. In particular, with reference to Figures 2 and 3, the ’848 parent application describes a method where (1) a customer chooses “a store where a desired product is being sold” (step 105), (2) the customer selects a delivery agent and sends an “acquisition request” to the delivery agent (steps 108, 109, 110), and (3) “the selected delivery agent travels to the store location . . . and finds the desired product to be acquired” (step 113). Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 17, 20, 23 (emphasis added). “The delivery agent then communicates to the customer that the product has been identified, and the customer has the option of inspecting the product in real-time” (step 117). Id. ¶ 23 (emphasis added). “Next, the customer either approves or rejects acquisition of the inspected product” (steps 119, 120, 122). Id. ¶ 24 (emphasis added). That description in the ’848 parent application clearly presumes that the product ordered by the customer has been located and is available for inspection, which is at odds with the additional requirements of claims 1 and 14 of “failing to locate an identified product” and “determining that the identified product is not available.” Ex. 1001, 11:20 (claim 1), 12:30 (claim 14) (emphases added). To the extent Consumeron argues otherwise, we are not persuaded at this preliminary stage. According to Consumeron, the customer’s rejection of the product means that “the agent fails to locate a product that is satisfactory.” See Prelim Resp. 11. But nowhere do we discern that the ’848 parent application hinges the identity and availability of a product on whether it is satisfactory to the customer. That a product might not meet a customer’s satisfaction does not negate the description in the ’848 parent application that the agent locates and identifies the product in the first instance before giving the customer the option to inspect and reject the product. Indeed, because the customer placed the online order with a store advertising the product, the presumption is that the advertised product is available and satisfactory to the customer.8 And, while conceivably the purchase of a product cannot be fulfilled in the event the product is unavailable, it would seem to be improper hindsight to derive written description support by “[w]orking backward from a knowledge of the claims.” Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, based on the preliminary record, the ’848 parent application does not provide sufficient written description for the terms noted above. As such, we find that Instacart demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in showing that the asserted references are prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 6

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

    “and Lauka. See Pet. 30–44, 47–49. We begin with Instacart’s challenge of method claim 1. Instacart provides a detailed mapping of how Carr satisfies all the recited limitations of claim 1, except limitation [1.0.3], for which Instacart points to Lauka. See id. at 35–44. In particular, Instacart cites the following evidence in support of its contentions that Carr and Lauka, when combined, teach or suggest each of the recited limitations of claim 1: Limitation 1.0.1—“A method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods through one or more agents of a service provider” (Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 39, 43, 45, 92, Figs. 1, 3, 6;; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 97–100)); Limitation 1.0.2—“each agent having a mobile agent system in communication with at least one remote server,” (Pet. 35–37 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 6, 40–43, 53, Fig. 1 (annotated); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101–104)); Limitation 1.0.3—“with each mobile agent system including: a digital image capture device and a communication device, said method comprising:” (Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 74, 88, 94, 122; Ex. 1006, 3:19–28, 3:49–57, 4:10–21; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105– 109)); Limitation 1.1—“receiving, through the at least one remote server, a first acquisition request from a customer for a first set of one or more goods;” (Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 60, 73, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110–112)); Limitation 1.2—“contacting, through the communications device, the one or more agents;” (Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 57, 74; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 113–115)); Limitation 1.3—“upon failing to locate an identified product of the set of one or more goods, electronically transmitting information on a replacement product for the identified product of the set of one or more goods to the customer using the digital image capture device of the agent, including:” (Pet. 38–40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 90, 95, 96, 105, 107, ; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 116– 119)); Limitation 1.4—“obtaining a bar or QR code of the replacement product;” (Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 95, 107; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 120– 122)); Limitation 1.5—“determining the information from the bar or QR code, wherein the information includes at least one image of the replacement product; and” (Pet. 40–42 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 95–96, 116; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 123–127)); Limitation 1.6—“sending the information for the customer to approve the purchase of the replacement product based on the information determined from the bar or QR code; and” (Pet. 42– 43 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51, 96–99, Fig. 12; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 128– 130)); and Limitation 1.7—“upon receiving approval of the purchase from the customer, acquiring the replacement product, via the agent.” (Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 99, 101; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 131–132)); Instacart also provides a reason why one skilled in the art would have combined the teachings of Carr and Lauka with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 31–34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–96); see also id. at 37 (“In view of the teachings of Lauka, a POSITA would have recognized that it was obvious to implement the UPC scanner functionality of Carr’s handheld device using an ‘imaging device’ such as that taught by Lauka, which specifies that the ‘imaging device 206 can comprise a video or still camera’ and ‘can be used to capture images.’ Ex.1006, 3:49-57; Ex.1003, ¶¶105- 107.”).” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,238,465
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00807 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner proposes construing “defining an optically transparent window.” Pet. 8–10. Petitioner proposes that “for a cover to ‘define’ an optically transparent window simply means to allow passage of light to a relevant component through the cover.” Id. at 10. Patent Owner “does not object to the constructions proposed by Petitioner at this time.” Prelim. Resp. 18. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the record before us, we determine that no express construction of any term is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D. The Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 10–14, and 16–20 Over” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner does not explain persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reconfigured Kotanagi’s two rear electrodes meant for determining whether a potential between the electrodes decreases (to indicate lack of skin contact) to enable ECG measurements using the particular configuration recited in the claims. We have considered Petitioner’s contentions in light of both Kotanagi and Coppola and Petitioner’s proposed combination appears hindsight driven. The combination requires that a person of ordinary skill in the art selectively pick portions of each reference while also frustrating the purpose of Kotanagi’s electrodes of ensuring skin contact by determining a potential difference.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,474,483
• Nintendo Co., Ltd. / Nintendo Of America Inc. v. Gamevice, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 6, 2023 · IPR2023-00643 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–7 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Willner and Park.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. In our previous decision in the 1197 IPR, we exercised our discretion to deny institution under § 314(a) based on our consideration of the Fintiv factors. 1197 IPR, Paper 13, 23. The decision in the 1197 IPR noted that although “there does appear to be some strength to the merits of Petitioner’s challenges,” this determination was based particularly on the fact that “the ’393 patent’s claims share some of the same claim limitations addressed by the Board previously in the ’119 patent’s IPRs.” See id. at 20–21. Therefore, we did not fully address the substantive merits of any of Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability. 10 We also are not persuaded that the changes between the Petition in the 1197 IPR and the present Petition demonstrates “ample evidence” of road-mapping. Instead, we agree with Petitioner that “[t]hese changes are not road-mapping because they are unrelated to the record in the earlier [1197] IPR.” Pet. Reply 2–3. And, as we explained above, our earlier decision did not fully address the substantive merits of any of Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability, nor did we address the substantive merits of any of Patent Owner’s counterarguments. See General Plastic, Paper 19, 17 (warning against allowing “petitioners the opportunity to strategically stage their prior art and arguments in multiple petitions, using our decisions as a roadmap.”) (emphasis added); see also id. at fn.14 (citing Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, IPR2014-00581, Paper 8, 12–13 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) (criticizing petitioner’s use of “our prior decision as a roadmap”) (emphasis added). In addition, Patent Owner acknowledges that the present Petition challenges “the same claims 1–7 based on identical prior art references and substantially similar grounds.” Prelim. Resp. 1 (emphasis omitted). Thus, we find Patent Owner’s “road-mapping” concerns to be minimized based on the similarity of the unpatentability challenges between those raised in the 1197 IPR Petition and the present Petition. For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that factors 1–3 weigh in favor of institution. See Code200, Paper 18 at 5 (“Where the first-filed petition under factor 1 was discretionarily denied or otherwise was not evaluated on the merits, factors 1−3 only weigh in favor of discretionary denial when there are ‘road-mapping’ concerns under factor 3 or other concerns under factor 2.”).” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “based on the related district court matters identified above. Prelim. Resp. 17–27; see Fintiv, Paper 11, 12 (holding that PTAB has discretion to deny institution in certain circumstances where there are parallel district court proceedings). Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue the same invalidity grounds against the challenged claims of the ’393 patent in the parallel litigation [or] any 14 grounds that could have been reasonably raised in this petition” (Pet. 85)7, we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “At the outset, we note that the exercise of discretion in Advanced Bionics did not turn on mere citation in an IDS of the art asserted in the petition. Rather, the Board’s exercise of discretion in that case turned on the Examiner’s application and discussion of that art. Specifically, the Board 18 found in Advanced Bionics that the asserted art, Zimmerling, “is the same art previously presented to the Office” because “the Examiner rejected [the claims] as anticipated by Zimmerling” and “Zimmerling was discussed during prosecution.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6, 13. In other words, the criteria adopted by the Board for denying the petition in Advanced Bionics included not only the fact that the art was made of record, but also the fact that it was applied and discussed during prosecution. Anything less disregards the express reasoning behind the Board’s exercise of discretion in that case. Here, Patent Owner has not shown that any Petitioner’s cited art (i.e., Willner, Park, Schoenith, Kessler, Hirschman) was applied by the Examiner or discussed during prosecution. Instead, during examination of the ’393 patent, the record shows that the Examiner allowed the pending claims over “Wu (2006/0252537) in view of Willis (2014/0274394).” Ex. 1009, 26–29. In doing so, the Examiner stated that a “[g]ame controller with structural bridge is well known in the art” (id. at 27), but found that “Wu in view of Willis is silent on” the subject matter claim 1. See id. at 27–28 (quoting the subject matter of independent claim 1 in its entirety). However, on this record, Petitioner demonstrates that the Examiner overlooked the combination of Willner and Park’s teachings of the limitations that were the basis for allowing the challenged claims. Id. As discussed in more detail below, Petitioner’s evidence demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least independent claim 1 of the ’393 patent is unpatentable over the combination of Willner and Park. See Pet. 19–41 (citing Exs. 1002, 1003, 1004).” slip op. at 18

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

    “4. Conclusion for Claim 1 Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Willner and Park teaches all limitations of claim 1. Petitioner also has put forth sufficient reasons for combining these references with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 133–139, 150–157; Ex. 1003 ¶ 50; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39–46). For example, Petitioner asserts that “Park’s adjustable bridge ‘would greatly expand the number of devices that [Willner’s] product would support, leading to the predictable result of having a larger base of customers.’” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1011, 19; Ex. 1018, 185 Ex. 1003 ¶ 138). Based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Willner and Park.” slip op. at 37

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,391,393
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Oct 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00745 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4 and 8–22 for all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ recitations are similar in scope. Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. This proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with both the scope of the claimed invention and the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that our decision would be the same adopting either proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “embedded” (recited in claims 1, 9, and 15), “lead” (recited in the independent claims), “pad” (recited in claim 1 and some of its dependent claims), and “pocket” (recited in dependent claim 8). Pet. 7–12. Patent Owner, at this time, “discerns no need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on analyses of Masimo’s asserted grounds, and would not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties.” Prelim. Resp. 6.” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenOther

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s citation to Mills (Ex. 1006, 5:18–19), which is “[y]et another VLSI chip . . . SRAM chip 38,” does not necessarily disclose a processor standing alone. Petitioner’s position, however, does not rely just on SRAM chip 38, but instead a VLSI comprising other circuit components, including a distinct processor. See Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1006, 2:3–6). Petitioner first cites to Mills column 2 to support its position that “housing 12 comprises a very-large scale integrated (VLSI) circuit chip that includes an ‘ECG signal and abnormal event detection circuitry, analog-to-digital (AD) and digital-to-analog (DA) conversion circuitry, memory and processor circuitry.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1006, 2:3–6). Petitioner next relies on Mills’ disclosure that “microprocessor and associated electronics, including firmware executed thereby, employs a digital bandpass filter reliably to detect ECG signals.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1006, 2:20–23). Petitioner next cites to Mills (Ex. 1006, 4:55–5:3), which describes “circuitry shown schematically in FIG.4, including on [PCB 50’s] bottom side a microcontroller (with integral ROM) chip 42.” Pet. 31. It is unclear from this citation whether Petitioner is relying on microcontroller 42 (on PCB 50’s bottom side) as a processor because Petitioner then quotes Mills’ discussion of SRAM chip 38, which states “that the VLSI is surface-mounted on the top side of printed circuit board (PCB) 50.” Pet. 31 (quoting Ex. 1006, 5:18–19). We understand Petitioner’s position as relying on the “very-large scale integrated (VLSI) circuit chip that includes” several components, including “memory and processor circuitry.” Pet. 31 (quoting Ex. 1006, 2:3–6). Notably, this section of the specification is labeled, “Background and Summary of the Invention,” and the paragraph describing this VLSI circuit chip is “summarizing the invention.” Ex. 1006, 1:7–8, 1:60. This VLSI circuit chip does not appear to us to be the same as VLSI SRAM chip 38, which is characterized by Mills as “[y]et another VLSI chip.” Ex. 1006, 5:18. Mr. Oslan testifies that “the VLSI is a processor coupled to the heart sensor (first and second electrodes 14 and 16, respectively) and is configured to receive and process the detected cardiac signal.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 65. Mr. Oslan relies on Mills’ disclosure of a microprocessor and associated electronics, including firmware employing a digital bandpass filter for detecting ECG signals. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 2:20–23). This cited sentence of Mills further discloses characterizing ECG signals (processing) based on QRS complexes or pacer and defibrillator pulses, but ignoring noise and motion artifacts. Ex. 1006, 2:20–25. Patent Owner makes additional arguments, such as alleging that the” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,076,257
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Oct 5, 2023 · IPR2023-00734 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Masimo would prevail on claims 1, 7, and 14 as obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “inter partes review, “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.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] 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, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 12

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

    “information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’491 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’491 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 21

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for certain terms concerning the cover material—“a cover formed from a dielectric material,” “a transparent substrate,” and “a cover comprising a non-conductive material”—and window terms such as “defines at least one window” and “window defined.” Pet. 7–10. Patent Owner states: “While not agreeing with Petitioner’s proposed constructions (or lack thereof) for certain claim terms . . . , solely for purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not object to the constructions proposed by Petitioner at this time.” Prelim. Resp. 24. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,942,491

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.