- Intel Corporation / Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 1, 2017 · IPR2016-00289 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 14, and 16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Sakamoto; claims 4–6 and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Sakamoto and Cederbaum.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“CLAIM CONSTRUCTION In our Decision to Institute, we applied the ordinary and customary meaning to the terms not construed. We applied the broadest reasonable interpretation to the following term that required construction. Noting a claim construction dispute in co-pending district court litigation, Petitioner proposed that we construe the “diffusion region formed in said substrate” to mean “conductive terminal region, such as a source or drain, that contains dopants implanted in the silicon substrate.” Pet. 25. As discussed in the Decision to Institute, we determined that the subject matter of the claims concerns a local interconnect between a gate and a diffusion region and that there was no need to further construe “the diffusion region formed in said substrate” for purposes of this decision. Dec. to Inst. 5–6. Based on the complete record now before us, we discern no reason to change the constructions.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites that the insulator layer is formed of material selected from the group consisting of silicon oxide and silicon nitride. Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s disclosure of softening and reflowing BoroPhosphoSilicate Glass (BPSG) film to form insulating layer 9, stating that BPSG is a type of silicon oxide. Id. at 46 (citing Bravman Decl. ¶ 90; Ex. 1015, 185).5 We credit Dr. Bravman’s testimony and are persuaded that insulating layer 9 is formed of silicon oxide.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“not shown, we are persuaded that the evidence supports the proposition that the implanted p-well region is part of the silicon substrate. Based on this analysis, we are persuaded that Sakamoto discloses element (a) a silicon substrate with a top surface. As to element (b), we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Sakamoto discloses a diffusion region formed in said substrate. Element (b) also recites that the diffusion region is adjacent said top surface. Having determined that the p-well region is part of the substrate, we agree that Figure 1 of Sakamoto illustrates a diffusion region in the form of source/drain region 7 adjacent to the top surface of the substrate.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner persuasively argues that the evidence supports the conclusion that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cederbaum with those of Sakamoto because they both teach the same type of device and are directed to the same problem, i.e., stacking transistors in an SRAM. Pet. 51. Petitioner points out that Cederbaum and Sakamoto also disclose nearly identical structures with nearly identical components, with both employing an electrically conducting plug within an opening that contains a sidewall spacer to directly connect a diffusion region to a gate. Id. at 52–53. Petitioner cites Cederbaum’s disclosure of materials, such as refractory metals, to be used in forming the conductive plug and Sakamoto’s discussion of the advantages to using a conductive plug of increased conductivity. Id. at 53–54. Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to replace the polycrystalline plug 15 of Sakamoto with a refractory metal plug of tungsten, as disclosed by Cederbaum. Id. at 51. This feature (“said electrically conducting plug is a refractory metal plug”) is recited in claim 5 of the ’924 Patent. Claim 4 recites a metal plug and claim 6 recites the electrically conducting plug is formed of a material selected for the group consisting of titanium, tantalum, molybdenum, and tungsten. Petitioner cites Cederbaum’s disclosure at column 9, lines 31–65 as disclosing a tungsten conducting plug. Id. at 49–50.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 5,965,924 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 5,965,924 - Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00306 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 63 was not shown unpatentable because Spinney does not disclose performing the selecting and determining steps in parallel.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“First, we give no credit to Dr. Chao’s opinion in this regard because it is not supported by Spinney. Specifically, we give no weight to Dr. Chao’s opinion that “Spinney makes clear that the CAM lookup and the hashing function (i.e., the forwarding lookup) take place at the same time.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Instead, we find that the parallel operations in Spinney are confined to (1) applying the hash function to the 48-bit address and (2) performing a CAM lookup of the same 48-bit address. For example, Spinney discloses in Figure 8 that incoming address field 85 is subjected to hash function 86 to produce another 48-bit value. See id. at Fig. 8, 15:21−24; 16:16−19 (“The 48-bit destination address 61 from an incoming packet is simultaneously subjected to the hash function 86 and a CAM match” (emphasis added)), 16:44−46 (“this compare in the CAM is done in parallel with the hash function” (emphasis added)). The application of the hash function and the performance of the hash lookup are two different operations that produce different results. The hash function application produces a hashed 48-bit value, while the hash lookup results in pointing to an entry in the translation table that includes the gigaheader information, for processing the packet. See id. at Fig. 8 (identifying hash function 86 applied to input address 85, resulting in hashed address 89); 15:60−63. Spinney further discloses that the hash lookup is performed only if a CAM match is not found and, therefore, must occur after the CAM lookup is performed. Id. at 16:20–26 (“[I]f a CAM match is found in CAM 23, an index into the translation table 94 is immediately generated as indicated by the line 100. If not, the 16-bit field 88 of the hashed address 87 is used to index into the hash table 89 . . . .” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“is not supported by Spinney. Specifically, we give no weight to Dr. Chao’s opinion that “Spinney makes clear that the CAM lookup and the hashing function (i.e., the forwarding lookup) take place at the same time.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Instead, we find that the parallel operations in Spinney are confined to (1) applying the hash function to the 48-bit address and (2) performing a CAM lookup of the same 48-bit address. For example, Spinney discloses in Figure 8 that incoming address field 85 is subjected to hash function 86 to produce another 48-bit value. See id. at Fig. 8, 15:21−24; 16:16−19 (“The 48-bit destination address 61 from an incoming packet is simultaneously subjected to the hash function 86 and a CAM match” (emphasis added)), 16:44−46 (“this compare in the CAM is done in parallel with the hash function” (emphasis added)). The application of the hash function and the performance of the hash lookup are two different operations that produce different results. The hash function application produces a hashed 48-bit value, while the hash lookup results in pointing to an entry in the translation table that includes the gigaheader information, for processing the packet. See id. at Fig. 8 (identifying hash function 86 applied to input address 85, resulting in hashed address 89); 15:60−63. Spinney further discloses that the hash lookup is performed only if a CAM match is not found and, therefore, must occur after the CAM lookup is performed. Id. at 16:20–26 (“[I]f a CAM match is found in CAM 23, an index into the translation table 94 is immediately generated as indicated by the line 100. If not, the 16-bit field 88 of the hashed address 87 is used to index into the hash table 89 . . . .” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 7,023,853 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,023,853 - Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00303 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 are unpatentable as obvious over Huey and ATM UNI; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“PO Mot. 13–14. A motion to exclude is the wrong vehicle to challenge public availability, which is a substantive issue that goes to the sufficiency of the evidence, not to admissibility at issue here. FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, slip. op., Paper 113 at 4 (PTAB September 3, 2015) (“A motion to exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence.”); see also 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“A motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). For the reasons above, we do not exclude Exhibit 1028.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). To qualify as a prior art printed publication, the reference must have been disseminated or otherwise made accessible to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter to which the document relates prior to the critical date. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding both hair brush art and toothbrush art to be analogous to a claim to a hair brush) (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. (citations omitted). The scope of the field of endeavor is a factual determination based on the scope of the application's written description and claims. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326. slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“There are two problems with Petitioner’s assertion. First, Petitioner has not shown a reason to combine Kogge with Huey and the ATM UNI Specification. Second, to the extent this reference is used to show the scope and content of the art at the time of the invention, Kogge makes it clear that parallelism and pipelining are different concepts that are “generally discernably different in their general approach.” Ex. 1033, 1. Petitioner has not explained how Kogge shows that putting packets through the pipeline without waiting for the previous packet to finish would be considered operating in parallel given that this reference distinguishes parallel operation from pipeline operation. Petitioner argued at the oral hearing that Patent Owner was advocating “a particular flavor of parallelism, as opposed to what’s understood by normal parallel pipelining.” Tr. 41:6–14. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant has explained what “normal parallel pipelining” is or what the basis is for us to define “normal parallel pipelining.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Huey to meet the limitation of performing at least two of said steps “in parallel using a pipeline.”” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,377,577 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,377,577 - Department Of Justice v. Envisionit, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 3, 2017 · IPR2017-00186 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 14, 15, 23, 27, or 30 unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. We generally accept a petitioner’s identification of real parties in interest at the time of filing the petition. Petitioner represents that IBM has not funded, directed, or otherwise controlled the preparation of the Petition in this proceeding. Pet. 4. Patent Owner introduces no evidence that reasonably brings into question Petitioner’s identification of real parties in interest. Moreover, Patent Owner has not shown persuasively that the indemnification clause at issue, which gives IBM an “opportunity as is afforded by applicable laws, rules, or regulations to participate in its defense,” gives IBM an opportunity to direct or control this proceeding.8 On this record, we are not persuaded that IBM is a real party in interest.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner
“Linköping University in Norrköping, Sweden, and is alleged to have been made available over the Internet. Thus, to determine a date on which Gundlegård was publicly accessible, we look to evidence of the library’s cataloging and indexing practices and any search capability of the library’s website. See Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348; Voter Verified, 698 F.3d at 1380; SRI, 511 F.3d at 1196.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The parties propose competing constructions of “broadcast.” Pet. 10– 11; Prelim. Resp. 14–19. Patent Owner also proposes a construction for “validating,” recited in claim 14. Prelim. Resp. 19–21. Nevertheless, we need not construe these or any other terms for the purposes of this Decision to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of its declarant, Mr. Randall A. Snyder, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, engineering, physics, mathematics, or other technical field, along with three to five years of practical cellular network and protocol design and software development experience. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not propose a level of skill or contest Petitioner’s statement. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,103,719 - Department Of Justice v. Envisionit, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 1, 2017 · IPR2017-00183 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 11–13, 42, 47, and 57 unpatentable on the asserted obviousness and anticipation grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner. We generally accept a petitioner’s identification of real parties in interest at the time of filing the petition. Petitioner represents that IBM has not funded, directed, or otherwise controlled the preparation of the Petition in this proceeding. Pet. 4. Patent Owner introduces no evidence that reasonably brings into question Petitioner’s identification of real parties in interest. Moreover, Patent Owner has not shown persuasively that the indemnification clause at issue, which gives IBM an “opportunity as is afforded by applicable laws, rules, or regulations to participate in its defense,” gives IBM an opportunity to direct or control this proceeding.1 On this record, we are not persuaded that IBM is a real party in interest.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“1. Petitioner has not shown that Gundlegård was publicly accessible Gundlegård states on its face that it is a master’s thesis kept at Linköping University in Norrköping, Sweden, and is alleged to have been made available over the Internet. Thus, to determine a date on which Gundlegård was publicly accessible, we look to evidence of the library’s cataloging and indexing practices and any search capability of the library’s website. See Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348; Voter Verified, 698 F.3d at 1380; SRI, 511 F.3d at 1196.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“III. CONCLUSION Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that claims 1, 11–13, 42, 47, and 57 are unpatentable. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review is not instituted for claims 1, 11–13, 42, 47, and 57 of U.S. Patent No. 7,693,938 B2.” slip op. at 31
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, engineering, physics, mathematics, or other technical field, along with three to five years of practical cellular network and protocol design and software development experience. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not propose a level of skill or contest Petitioner’s statement. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 3 The record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 16
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,693,938 - Department Of Justice v. Envisionit, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 26, 2017 · IPR2017-00180 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 17, and 23 were unpatentable as obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner. We generally accept a petitioner’s identification of real parties in interest at the time of filing the petition. Petitioner represents that IBM has not funded, directed, or otherwise controlled the preparation of the Petition in this proceeding. Pet. 3. Patent Owner introduces no evidence that reasonably brings into question Petitioner’s identification of real parties in interest. Moreover, Patent Owner has not shown persuasively that the indemnification clause at issue, which gives IBM an “opportunity as is afforded by applicable laws, rules, or regulations to participate in its defense,” gives IBM an opportunity to direct or control this proceeding.1 On this record, we are not persuaded that IBM is a real party in interest.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“1. Petitioner has not shown that Gundlegård was publicly accessible Gundlegård states on its face that it is a master’s thesis kept at Linköping University in Norrköping, Sweden, and is alleged to have been made available over the Internet. Thus, to determine a date on which Gundlegård was publicly accessible, we look to evidence of the library’s cataloging and indexing practices and any search capability of the library’s website. See Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348; Voter Verified, 698 F.3d at 1380; SRI, 511 F.3d at 1196. The Petition does not provide a detailed statement of Petitioner’s arguments as to the public accessibility of Gundlegård. Rather, Petitioner simply states “[a]s documented by the declaration of Amelia Nuss (Ex. 1021), the thesis was published at least as early as October 27, 2003.” Pet. 14. The detailed basis for Petitioner’s contention is stated in the Nuss Declaration. Patent Owner argues that this constitutes an improper incorporation by reference of arguments from the Nuss Declaration into the Petition, in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Prelim. Resp. 20–21 n.4. We share Patent Owner’s concern. Nevertheless, we agree with Patent Owner that the Nuss Declaration, even if considered, does not support a finding that Gundlegård was publicly available.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Although the parties propose competing constructions of “broadcast” (Pet. 7–8; Prelim. Resp. 14–18), we need not construe this or any other term for the purposes of this Decision to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, engineering, physics, mathematics, or other technical field, along with three to five years of practical cellular network and protocol design and software development experience. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not propose a level of skill or contest Petitioner’s statement. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 4 The record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,136,954 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01801 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30, 31, 33, and 40–46 were not shown unpatentable because Rabinovich required prior client access before replication, and Carter did not cure that limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Ratner, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 21–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 20. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. at 21. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“whether to replicate data object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating/migrating object xs only if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, and the ratio can be greater than m only if cnt(s,xs) is greater than zero. PO Resp. 19; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication or migration step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate or migrate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independent of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“30, for use with a computer game (claim 45) and with an interactive computer game accessed by at least two users (claim 46). Ex. 1001, 30:47– 54. In connection with its obviousness contentions, Petitioner makes no separate arguments why Rabinovich teaches or suggests shifting redundantly stored data based upon data transmission parameters between the servers independent of an access of the client. Pet. 45–47; Reply 17–18. Because claims 45 and 46 depend from claim 30, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rabinovich teaches or suggests the limitations in these two dependent claims for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 30.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS RE40,521 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rabinovich; Petitioner did not prove claims 1–15 obvious over Rabinovich.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 19–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 21. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating object xs if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, i.e., a non-zero value. PO Resp. 34; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Rabinovich object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independently of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Rabinovich” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“pieces” Claim 1 recites “each file including a plurality of individual pieces, the pieces containing parts of the files.” Ex. 1002, 25:67–26:1. The other independent claims recite limitations commensurate in scope. Neither party proposes explicitly a construction of the term “piece.” Petitioner argues that “files are inherently composed of pieces in the form of bits that make up bytes, the bytes themselves being pieces of the file.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner argues that construing “piece” to cover “bits and bytes” of a file “would read out the ‘pieces’ limitation from the claim entirely” (PO Resp. at 29–30) and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the ‘pieces’ limitation of the claim to include bits and bytes” (id. at 30). The claims themselves define “piece” by requiring that a “file” have a “plurality of individual pieces,” but do not establish a lower bound—i.e., a minimum number of bits or bytes—to qualify as a “piece.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the ’680 patent for its contention that “piece” or “pieces” excludes a byte or bytes of a file, relying instead solely on the testimony of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39). We are not persuaded by Dr. Jacobs’s conclusory testimony. Because “piece” and “pieces” are limited by the claims only to being a subset of a file and because a byte or collection of bytes of a file is a subset of that file, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “piece” and “pieces” in light of the Specification of the ’680 patent encompasses a byte or bytes. slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 7,904,680 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,904,680 - Samsung Display Co., Ltd. / Funai Electric Co., Ltd. et al. v. Gold Charm Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01417 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 are unpatentable: claims 3, 5, and 6 as anticipated by Takizawa; claim 2 as obvious over Takizawa and Hoshino; and claims 2, 3, and 6 as anticipated by Hoshino.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“The Federal Circuit “counsels the PTO to avoid the temptation to limit broad claim terms solely on the basis of specification passages.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.” Id. Additionally, “‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion’ or ‘explicit’ disclaimers in the specification are necessary to disavow claim scope.” Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Whether the order of the steps recited in a method claim must be performed in a particular order is properly a part of claim construction. See, e.g., Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Generally, steps may be performed in any order so long as “nothing in the intrinsic evidence” compels otherwise. Id. at 1370. “Interactive Gift recites a two-part test for determining if the steps of a method claim that do not otherwise recite an order, must nonetheless be performed in the order in which they are written.” Altiris, 318 F.3d 1369 (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). “First, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, they must be performed in the order written.” Id. “If not, we next look to the rest of the specification to determine whether it directly or implicitly requires such a narrow construction.” Id. at 1370. (citation omitted). If not, the sequence in which such steps are written is not a requirement.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Takizawa does require forming an etch-stop (or channel protection layer, referred to as “the protecting film 18” in Takizawa) prior to (and as a necessary prerequisite to) forming the operative semiconductor of the TFT. Ex. 1003 at 15:1–32. However, Takizawa still performs only five patterning steps. In fact, Patent Owner admits that Takizawa performs only five etching/patterning steps. Tr. 40:23–41:9 (“there are five steps in Takizawa”); Ex. 2025 ¶ 49. Patent Owner suggests that to meet the claims limitations, step (c) must be performed before, in a separate and distinct manner from step (d). PO Resp. 47–48. Petitioner states that, although Takizawa may not perform step (c) of claim 1 before step (d), this claim do not require a specific order of steps. Pet. Reply 16. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on construing claim 1 to require performing step (c) of the claim before step (d). As we explained above in the claim construction section, we did not so limit this claim; thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. See supra Section II.A.2. Patent Owner does not address separately Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence with respect to claims 3, 5, and 6. See generally PO Resp. 47–48. We have reviewed Petitioner’s proposed ground of anticipation by Takizawa against claims 3, 5, and 6, and we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis. Based on the record developed during trial, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Takizawa anticipates claims 3, 5, and 6.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the TFT array operates best when the ACBL receives a consistent voltage, which is provided by driving circuitry through the ACBL terminal. Thus, to create a properly operating device, [a person of ordinary skill in the art] would seek out methods of providing a reference voltage to the capacitive electrodes and would incorporate the ACBL terminal of Hoshino into the Takizawa device in order to do so. Pet. 29; Ex. 1012 ¶ 70. We agree and adopt this stated rationale because it provides specific motivation to make the combination. We credit Petitioner’s declarant who testifies that “the [a person of ordinary skill in the art] would know how to etch the ACBL contact hole and gate bus line 24 contact hole in the same photolithography step because Hoshino provides an example of doing so.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 70. Hoshino itself provides the “how” to achieve the claims limitation.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 5,966,589 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 5,966,589 - Commscope Technologies, LLC v. Communications Components Antenna Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 3, 2016 · IPR2016-00999 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–28 unpatentable, principally because Yea did not establish the claimed asymmetrical coverage areas.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“partes review of claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,311,582 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’582 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Communications Components Antenna Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–28 of the ’582 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposed construction of this limitation is supported by the specification of the ’582 patent. The ’582 patent discloses replacing a single sector coverage area with sub-sector coverage areas, at least one of which is an asymmetrical coverage area. Ex. 1001, 3:16–18. The ’582 patent discloses that the use of asymmetrical coverage areas permits the total coverage area to closely approximate the symmetrical sector coverage area being replaced, without creating excessively large sub-sector handover zones or introducing sever degradation in network performance. Id. at 3:18–24. The ’582 patent discloses creating the asymmetrical coverage areas by replacing an existing antenna with an antenna that has substantially the same coverage area, but divides the coverage area into a plurality of separate asymmetrical beams or sub-sectors. Id. at 4:32–38. As disclosed by the ’582 patent, the replacement antenna produces a plurality of separate beams, each defining a new sub-sector with only a small overlapping area between them and which together provide substantially identical coverage to the sector supported by the original antenna, to upgrade the single sector to a plurality of sub-sectors without significantly affecting neighboring sites. Id. at 4:51–57. The replacement antenna introduces asymmetry into the generated beam pattern. Id. at 4:58–60. The introduction of asymmetrical beams by the replacement antenna allows close approximation of the coverage area of the conventional sector antenna being replaced. Id. at 5:61–64. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a plurality of sub-sector coverage areas extending therefrom, at least one of which is asymmetrical,” as a plurality of replacement sub-sector beams, at least one of which has an asymmetrical shape, where asymmetry includes deliberate or inherent asymmetry as the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“49 (Fed. Cir. 2005). There, the district court invalidated claims of the patent in suit on summary judgment based on the measured dimensions of a prior art patent figure. Id. at 1148. The Federal Circuit reversed, warning “that arguments based on drawings not explicitly made to scale in issued patents are unavailing.” Id. at 1149. Petitioner here does not identify any portion of Yea disclosing that Figures 4 and 8 are drawn accurately enough to determine an asymmetrical nature of the radiation patterns. Petitioner also fails to cite to any disclosure in Yea that identifies or describes an asymmetrical nature of the radiation patterns. Furthermore, Petitioner also has not explained why the shapes shown in the linear scale drawings of Figure 4 would show similar shapes when converted to a logarithmic scale. Additionally, Petitioner does not explain why the carrier to interference ratio shown in Figure 8 can be used to accurately measure antenna radiation beam patterns. We find Petitioner does not sufficiently establish that the plots shown in Figures 4 and 8 of Yea can be used to determine whether the antenna radiation beam pattern is asymmetrical. On the record before us, we determine the Petition and supporting evidence does not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that Yea anticipates independent claims 1, 13, and 20. b. Dependent Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27 Petitioner argues that Yea anticipates dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27. Pet. 47–53. In so arguing, Petitioner relies on Yea as disclosing the claimed asymmetrical coverage area. Id. Because we are not persuaded that Yea discloses this limitation, we are not persuaded that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that Yea anticipates dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“as well as testimony of both Mr. Collins and Mr. Cosgrove. Under Rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, any genuine issues of material fact created by the testimonial evidence should be viewed in light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. Even reviewing the testimony of Mr. Collins in the light most favorable to Petitioner, we determine Petitioner has established only that asymmetrical beams may be used in a planar array antenna, but not that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood steered beams of a planar array antenna are necessarily asymmetrical. Mr. Collins cites to Litva (Ex. 1009) and Wästberg (Ex. 1018) in stating that prior art steered beams of a planar array antenna can be asymmetrical beams. Ex. 1024 ¶ 179. We credit Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Mr. Cosgrove to determine Petitioner does not sufficiently establish the likelihood that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that steered beams of a planar array antenna are necessarily asymmetrical. Further, Petitioner fails to set forth a sufficient rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would use the asymmetrical beams of the prior art with the disclosure of Yea. Pet. 39–40. On the record before us, we determine the Petition and supporting evidence does not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that using asymmetrical beams in Yea would have been obvious. We therefore conclude that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11–15, 18–22, 24, and 27 would have been obvious over Yea, Metawave Website, Litva, and Wästberg.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,311,582
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.