• Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. / Mediatek Inc. et al. v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00314 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 14, 16, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are unpatentable; claims 3, 15, and 27 were not shown unpatentable under the Gerten and Cuffaro obviousness ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “sequence.” Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding, attests that the phrase is “a well-understood term of art.” Ding Decl. ¶ 35 (citing Ex. 1016, 127–33). Consistent with Dr. Ding’s testimony, we applied a preliminary construction of “hopping sequence” in the Institution Decision as “the order in which the communications network hops among the set of frequencies.” Dec. 7. That construction is not contested by Patent Owner, and we adopt it for this Final Written Decision. 2. “votes to use the particular communications channel” The noun phrase “votes to use the particular communications channel” is recited in each of challenged claims 3, 15, and 27. The term “vote” is not defined in the Specification of the ’624 patent. In the Institution Decision, we applied a preliminary construction of “votes to use the particular communications channel” as “expressions of preference for using the particular communications channel,” a construction that rejected Petitioner’s further proposal that the phrase alternatively encompasses indications whether the communications channel is “good or bad.” Dec. 7– 8. The parties do not present arguments that cause us to reconsider that aspect of the construction. Patent Owner “submits that ‘votes to use the particular communications channel’ should be construed to mean ‘expressions of preference of participants for using the particular communications channel,’” with underscoring to indicate words it proposes to add to the Board’s preliminary construction. PO Resp. 6. Patent Owner contends that “all of the embodiments” discussed in the Specification of the ’624 patent “are limited to originating from participant devices involved in the communications and are intended to be used to determine the best channels for communication among those same participants.” Id. This contention is not disputed by Petitioner, and we find no counter examples in the Specification. Patent Owner reasons that omission of reference to participants in the construction of the phrase “would be unduly broad and not supported by the specification and would not be how a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand that limitation in view of the specification.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Melendez Decl. ¶ 28). We are not persuaded by this reasoning. As Petitioner observes, the embodiments of the ’624 patent identified by Patent Owner are characterized as “examples,” and a person of ordinary skill “would understand that the example scenarios of the specification are not necessarily limiting on the claims.” Reply 3 (citing Ding Supp. Decl. ¶ 6). In addition, Petitioner notes that claim language in related patents owned by Patent Owner explicitly refers to participants, evidencing Patent Owner’s understanding “how to expressly create participant-specific voting requirements in claims.” Id. at 3.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner responds that “the Gerten device is not capable of and expressly teaches away from performing this functionality.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Melendez Decl. ¶ 33). Patent Owner contends that “Gerten’s disclosure is directed toward eliminating channels for use in an entire piconet as opposed to eliminating channels for use by certain participants within a piconet.” Id. (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that Gerten does not disclose a selection kernel capable of maintaining synchronization between a master and more than one slave in a piconet, with the master and one slave using a default set of channels while the same master and a different slave use a different set of channels. Id. We are not persuaded that the absence of a specific teaching of such a selection kernel supports the conclusion that one of skill in the art would understand Gerten to function in the manner Patent Owner suggests. In this instance, Petitioner refers to two embodiments of Gerten “in which a first participant communicates with a second participant via a normal sequence and with another participant via an adaptive hopping sequence.” Reply 5. First, Figure 3 of Gerten is reproduced below. Figure 3 illustrates “methodology for determining and communicating channels to be avoided to a remote device.” Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 4–6. As illustrated in the drawing, a master unit performs a discovery process (block 110) upon connecting with a new slave unit. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 60, 63. If the slave unit is capable of using interference avoidance, the master unit begins the process of determining a modified set of channels for use (block 120). Id. ¶ 45. If a second slave unable to use interference avoidance enters the piconet, standard frequency hopping is used. Supp. Ding Decl. ¶ 9. Under Patent Owner’s characterization of Gerten, entry of the second slave into the network would require the first slave necessarily to revert back to the default hopping sequence. Id. ¶ 10. This would undermine the stated benefits of Gerten, which explicitly discloses: The above process can be applied to a Bluetooth example and includes identification of a Bluetooth device’s ability to support interference avoidance, the measurements of signal strength on all channels and identification of which channel should not be used without violating the FCC rules, a method of modifying the Bluetooth hop sequence so that it will avoid channels containing strong or fixed interferers while still supporting standard Bluetooth hopping with other non-enabled members of the piconet and a method of relating necessary interference avoidance information to the remote Bluetooth devices. Ex. 1003, col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 9 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Nor are we persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that Gerten teaches away from the claim limitations. See PO Resp. 15. A prior-art reference does not teach away from the claimed subject matter unless the prior-art reference also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In support of this contention, Patent Owner relies on testimony by Dr. Melendez that “the only selection kernels (Gerten Fig. 6 and Fig. 7) disclosed for the transceiver (Gerten Fig. 2) in Gerten are expressly not capable of providing the subject claimed limitations of the [’]624 patent as is discussed below, and so would serve only to teach away from the claim.” Melendez Decl. ¶ 33. Even if Dr. Melendez’s statement is accurate, such examples in Gerten do not meet the “teaching away” standard because the mere use of examples in a reference that function in a different way does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. In addition, “[t]eaching away is irrelevant to anticipation.” Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-Cor, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner further provides persuasive reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the relevant teachings of Gerten and Cuffaro, including that “Cuffaro and Gerten are in the same field of endeavor” of selecting channels to avoid interference in a communications system; that measuring interference signal strength at a slave device such as described by Cuffaro provides a more accurate determination of the impact of the receiver unit from the interference on a given channel, and, therefore, would provide more accurate identification of bad channels in Gerten; and that Gerten suggests such a modification by describing that both a master and a slave can participate in identifying channels to avoid. Pet. 30–31. Petitioner supports this reasoning with declaration testimony by Dr. Ding. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 128, 129. Patent Owner responds by observing that, unlike Gerten, “Cuffaro does not relate to communications systems wherein the devices that are communicating with each other . . . are even transmitting or receiving on the same channels.” PO Resp. 21. Instead, the cellular telephone systems described by Cuffaro use separate physical channels for uplink and downlink. Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 9–11. Patent Owner contends that, in Cuffaro, performance data cannot be sent back on the same set of channels on which they were received, and, therefore “[a] mobile station of Cuffaro cannot transmit channel performance data ‘over one or more of the plurality of communications channels.’” PO Resp. 21–22. Dr. Melendez agrees. Melendez Decl. ¶¶ 42–44. Even accepting that Patent Owner’s contention regarding Cuffaro is factually accurate does not lead to the conclusion that Petitioner’s reasoning regarding the combination of Gerten and Cuffaro is deficient. Petitioner does not propose simply to incorporate the performance-data communication mechanism of Cuffaro into the system of Gerten. Rather, Petitioner relies on Cuffaro’s teaching of communicating performance data between devices, and applying that teaching to the system described by Gerten. See Reply 9– 10. That Cuffaro incidentally uses different frequencies for uplink and downlink communications does not diminish the relevance of the teaching identified by Petitioner. For these reasons, we Patent Owner makes too broad a general” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,477,624 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,477,624
• Sipnet Eu S.R.O. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2016 · IPR2013-00246 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1–7 and 32–42 not shown unpatentable because WINS and NetBIOS do not disclose the claimed current-connection status.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “party-in-interest. Whether a non-party is a “real party-in-interest” or “privy” for purposes of an inter partes review proceeding is a “highly fact-dependent question” that takes into account how courts generally have used the terms to “describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759. Whether parties are real parties-in-interest or in privity, for instance, depends on whether the relationship between the party and its alleged real party-in-interest or privy is “sufficiently close such that both should be bound by the trial outcome and related estoppels.” Id. A number of factors may be relevant to the analysis, including whether the non-party “exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding,” and whether the non-party is responsible for funding and directing the proceeding. Id. “The concept of control generally means that ‘it should be enough that the nonparty has the actual measure of control or opportunity to control that might reasonably be expected between two formal coparties.’” Id. (quoting 18A C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4451 (2d ed. 2011)). Patent Owner has not demonstrated that Stalker Software exercised or could have exercised control over Petitioner’s participation in this proceeding. The evidence of record establishes only that Stalker Software provided the WINS reference, at the request of Petitioner. Pet. Reply 1; Tr. 28:3–9. This alone is insufficient to demonstrate that Stalker Software exercised, or could have exercised, control over Petitioner’s participation in this proceeding. Patent Owner’s evidence of the existence of a vendor-reseller relationship between Stalker Software does not demonstrate Stalker Software exercised, or could have exercised, any control. When a patent holder sues a dealer, seller, or distributor of an accused product, the mere payment of counsel fees and minor participation by the vendor in the trial are insufficient to establish privity between the vendor and reseller. Bros, Inc. v. W.E. Grace Mfg. Co., 261 F.2d 428, 430 (5th Cir. 1958); see generally Broadcom Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Case IPR2013-00601, slip op. at 7, 8 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2014) (Paper 23). Patent Owner’s assertions regarding witnesses with connections to both Stalker Software and Petitioner, and Petitioner’s alleged lack of presence in the U.S. market, are statements of counsel unsupported by any record evidence, and, in any event, are not indicative of any control of this proceeding by Stalker Software. Considering the lack of probative evidence submitted by Patent Owner, we disagree that Stalker Software is a real partyin-interest. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner is barred from initiating this proceeding, or that sanctions should be imposed on Petitioner.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “fail to determine whether a computer or process is connected to the computer network. PO Resp. 31–46. In view of our construction of this claim limitation, we agree with Patent Owner. WINS discloses that once a computer is registered with the WINS server (which is a NetBIOS Name Server (NBNS)) as active and on-line, the WINS server maintains a database of names and addresses as active and on-line by (1) releasing names once a computer is shut down properly and (2) requiring a renewal time period in which a computer must reregister. Ex. 1004, 62–63, 75, 84, 130. WINS discloses that in response to User Datagram Protocol (UDP) name queries, “a mapping in the database does not ensure that the related device is currently running.” Id. at 73. WINS further explains that a “local WINS database should periodically be cleared of released entries and old entries that were registered at another WINS server but did not get removed from this WINS database for some reason.” Id. at 148. In other words, WINS discloses that the WINS database may include entries of computers that are not currently connected to the WINS network. See id. at 73, 148. Accordingly, a query as to whether a second process “is connected to the computer network” in WINS will not determine whether the second process is connected to the WINS network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server. As discussed above in our claim construction analysis (see Section I.E.1), a query as to whether a process “is connected to a computer network” or has an “on-line” status asks “whether the device ‘is’ connected, not whether it was connected or whether it is still registered as being connected even if that registration information is no longer accurate. It is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language . . . to say that it is satisfied by a query that asks only for registration information, regardless of its current accuracy.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360. WINS discloses that the WINS server has information that a process “was” connected to the computer network, and that information may no longer be accurate. See Ex. 1004, 84, 166. As such, we determine that WINS does not disclose the claimed “is connected to the computer network,” “on-line status,” “currently connected to the Internet,” and “connected to the computer network,” as construed herein.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner provides the testimony of Mr. Kolesnikov that WINS was publically available and a CD version (Ex. 1019) was received by Mr. Kolesnikov in 1994. Pet. Reply 13–14; Tr. 19:5–19; see Ex. 1017. Mr. Kolesnikov testifies that he saw several Microsoft Windows NT 3.5 Server packages that included a print copy of WINS. Ex. 1017 ¶ 7. Petitioner further provides the testimony of Ms. Ehrlich to establish that the differences between WINS and the CD version are differences mostly as to formatting. Pet. Reply 13–14; see Ex. 1018. Ms. Ehrlich testifies that WINS and the CD version are substantially similar, noting differences in the glossaries and formatting. Ex. 1018 ¶ 6; Ex. 2044, 16:17–24. We are persuaded that Petitioner has established WINS as prior art. We are persuaded that WINS was publically available in 1994. Mr. Kolesnikov testifies to seeing printed copies of WINS and the CD version in 1994. Ex. 1017 ¶ 7. Mr. Kolesnikov further testifies he recalls seeing printed copies of WINS during installations he did for clients in 1994, and is certain that it was 1994 because he switched jobs in 1995. Ex. 2043, 29:1–10, 32:21–22. Additionally, we are persuaded that the portions of WINS relied upon by Petitioner are different from the CD version due to formatting only. Tr. 23:1–25:8. Patent Owner’s argument consists of alleging that Petitioner has failed to establish that WINS was publically available and does not offer any evidence contrary to that presented by Petitioner. Based on the evidence discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established that WINS was publicly available in 1994, and, therefore, qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “fail to determine whether a computer or process is connected to the computer network. PO Resp. 31–46. In view of our construction of this claim limitation, we agree with Patent Owner. WINS discloses that once a computer is registered with the WINS server (which is a NetBIOS Name Server (NBNS)) as active and on-line, the WINS server maintains a database of names and addresses as active and on-line by (1) releasing names once a computer is shut down properly and (2) requiring a renewal time period in which a computer must reregister. Ex. 1004, 62–63, 75, 84, 130. WINS discloses that in response to User Datagram Protocol (UDP) name queries, “a mapping in the database does not ensure that the related device is currently running.” Id. at 73. WINS further explains that a “local WINS database should periodically be cleared of released entries and old entries that were registered at another WINS server but did not get removed from this WINS database for some reason.” Id. at 148. In other words, WINS discloses that the WINS database may include entries of computers that are not currently connected to the WINS network. See id. at 73, 148. Accordingly, a query as to whether a second process “is connected to the computer network” in WINS will not determine whether the second process is connected to the WINS network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server. As discussed above in our claim construction analysis (see Section I.E.1), a query as to whether a process “is connected to a computer network” or has an “on-line” status asks “whether the device ‘is’ connected, not whether it was connected or whether it is still registered as being connected even if that registration information is no longer accurate. It is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language . . . to say that it is satisfied by a query that asks only for registration information, regardless of its current accuracy.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360. WINS discloses that the WINS server has information that a process “was” connected to the computer network, and that information may no longer be accurate. See Ex. 1004, 84, 166. As such, we determine that WINS does not disclose the claimed “is connected to the computer network,” “on-line status,” “currently connected to the Internet,” and “connected to the computer network,” as construed herein.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,108,704 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,108,704
• Masterimage 3d, Inc. / Masterimage 3d Asia, LLC v. Reald Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2016 · IPR2015-00035 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board denied cancellation of claims 1–23 because Petitioner did not show Schuck was entitled to the provisional filing date, so it was not prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “as those presented in Dynamic Drinkware, with a few exceptions. The main difference is that here, Patent Owner did not have the burden to antedate Schuck because the ’455 patent was filed before the actual filing date of Schuck. The result of that difference is that the burden of production started with Petitioner and remains with Petitioner to establish that Schuck is entitled to claim priority to the ’657 provisional. Dynamic Drinkware is clear in that Petitioner is required to “compare the claims of . . . [Schuck] to the disclosure in the . . . [’657] provisional application.” Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381. The Federal Circuit explained: “A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.” Id. (citing In re Wertheim, 646 F.2d 527, 537 (CCPA 1981)). Petitioner acknowledges that the ’657 provisional fails to provide support under § 112, first paragraph, for Schuck’s claim 1. Supp. Reply 4. Petitioner’s claim chart, submitted as “Appendix 1” to its Supplemental Reply, indicates that the ’657 provisional refers to a “doublet lens” rather than a “telephoto lens pair.” Id. at App. 1, A-5. And Petitioner does not argue that the “doublet lens” provides support for the recited “telephoto lens pair.” See generally id.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

    “It is only “confidential information” that may be protected from disclosure, 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(7), and, even then, there is a public interest in “maintaining a complete and understandable file history” of the proceeding. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). The standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a). The party moving to seal bears the burden of proof in showing entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).” slip op. at 19

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for patent owner

    “as those presented in Dynamic Drinkware, with a few exceptions. The main difference is that here, Patent Owner did not have the burden to antedate Schuck because the ’455 patent was filed before the actual filing date of Schuck. The result of that difference is that the burden of production started with Petitioner and remains with Petitioner to establish that Schuck is entitled to claim priority to the ’657 provisional. Dynamic Drinkware is clear in that Petitioner is required to “compare the claims of . . . [Schuck] to the disclosure in the . . . [’657] provisional application.” Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381. The Federal Circuit explained: “A reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance with § 112, ¶ 1.” Id. (citing In re Wertheim, 646 F.2d 527, 537 (CCPA 1981)). Petitioner acknowledges that the ’657 provisional fails to provide support under § 112, first paragraph, for Schuck’s claim 1. Supp. Reply 4. Petitioner’s claim chart, submitted as “Appendix 1” to its Supplemental Reply, indicates that the ’657 provisional refers to a “doublet lens” rather than a “telephoto lens pair.” Id. at App. 1, A-5. And Petitioner does not argue that the “doublet lens” provides support for the recited “telephoto lens pair.” See generally id.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “for multiple reasons. First, Petitioner acknowledges that what it refers to as “the Milburn doctrine” was codified in 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and Petitioner does not show persuasively that we should read Milburn as requiring anything beyond application of that statutory section in light of the facts presented here. Supp. Reply 6. Second, Milburn did not address directly the question of whether an issued patent is entitled to claim priority to a provisional patent application, and, specifically, what must be shown in order to do so. Third, Schuck claims priority to not one, but three provisional applications, which was not the case in Milburn. Fourth, in Giacomini, the Federal Circuit expressly considered Milburn and stated: “An important limitation [on 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1)] is that the provisional application must provide written description support for the claimed invention.” Giacomini, 612 F.2d at 1383 (emphasis added). Although the Federal Circuit did not address the application of the argument—that the reference patent’s provisional application fails to provide written description support for the claimed subject matter—in Giacomini, because the appellant had waived it, the Federal Circuit’s decision acknowledges that there was an argument that could have been raised. Id. Finally, Dynamic Drinkware is directly on point and clearly establishes that Petitioner is required to show that the claimed invention of Schuck finds written description support in the ’657 provisional in order to rely on the ’657 provisional’s filing date. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381. It is undisputed that Petitioner has not done so. We find that Petitioner has not shown that claim 1 or any other claim of Schuck is supported by the ’657 provisional, and, thus, Petitioner has not shown that Schuck is entitled to claim priority to the ’657 provisional’s filing date. See Apple, Case IPR2015-00969, slip op. at 12–13. The result of our finding is that Schuck does not qualify as prior art, under § 102(e), to the ’455 patent, and, therefore, is not a reference which may be relied upon to establish the unpatentability of claims in an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (“A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) claims 1–8, 10–14, and 16–22 are unpatentable as anticipated by Schuck and (2) claims 9, 15, and 23 are unpatentable as obvious over Schuck and APA.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,857,455 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,857,455
• HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. v. NFC Technology, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2016 · IPR2014-01198 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5 are unpatentable as obvious over Sears and as obvious over Sears and Nguyen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “A party seeking to establish an actual reduction to practice must satisfy a two-prong test: (1) the party must construct an embodiment or perform a process that satisfies every element of the claim at issue, and (2) the embodiment or process must operate for its intended purpose. See Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Moreover, in order to demonstrate an actual reduction to practice, the constructed embodiment must have been tested sufficiently to demonstrate that it will work for its intended purpose, but it need not be in a commercially satisfactory stage of development. See, e.g., Scott, 34 F.3d at 1062; see also Wells v. Fremont, 177 USPQ 22, 24–25 (BPAI 1972) (“[E]ven where tests are conducted under ‘bench’ or laboratory conditions, those conditions must ‘fully duplicate each and every condition of actual use’ or if they do not, then the evidence must establish a relationship between the subject matter, the test condition and the intended functional setting of the invention,” but it is not necessary that all the conditions of actual use are duplicated.). Further, an actual reduction to practice can be done by another on behalf of the inventor. De Solms v. Schoenwald, 15 USPQ2d 1507, 1510 (BPAI 1990). Here, it is undisputed that Concept Electronique, rather than the named inventor, Mr. Charrat, fabricated the prototype, on which Patent Owner relies to establish actual reduction to practice. PO Resp. 17–18. Assuming initially, without deciding, that the prototype embodies the subject matter of the challenged claims, the issue is whether Patent Owner has sufficiently shown that the Concept Electronique-built prototype inures to Patent Owner’s benefit. We determine that Patent Owner has not.” slip op. at 23

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “To antedate . . . an invention, a party must show either an earlier reduction to practice, or an earlier conception followed by a diligent reduction to practice.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GMBH, 237 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (emphasis added, internal citation omitted). Patent Owner’s position is based on the first of these options, i.e., that it was the first actually to reduce the invention to practice, rather than the first to conceive plus diligent reduction to practice. PO Resp. 9; PO Sur-Reply 4–5. A party seeking to establish an actual reduction to practice must satisfy a two-prong test: (1) the party must construct an embodiment or perform a process that satisfies every element of the claim at issue, and (2) the embodiment or process must operate for its intended purpose. See Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Moreover, in order to demonstrate an actual reduction to practice, the constructed embodiment must have been tested sufficiently to demonstrate that it will work for its intended purpose, but it need not be in a commercially satisfactory stage of development. See, e.g., Scott, 34 F.3d at 1062; see also Wells v. Fremont, 177 USPQ 22, 24–25 (BPAI 1972) (“[E]ven where tests are conducted under ‘bench’ or laboratory conditions, those conditions must ‘fully duplicate each and every condition of actual use’ or if they do not, then the evidence must establish a relationship between the subject matter, the test condition and the intended functional setting of the invention,” but it is not necessary that all the conditions of actual use are duplicated.). Further, an actual reduction to practice can be done by another on behalf of the inventor. De Solms v. Schoenwald, 15 USPQ2d 1507, 1510 (BPAI 1990). Here, it is undisputed that Concept Electronique, rather than the named inventor, Mr. Charrat, fabricated the prototype, on which Patent Owner relies to establish actual reduction to practice. PO Resp. 17–18. Assuming initially, without deciding, that the prototype embodies the subject matter of the challenged claims, the issue is whether Patent Owner has sufficiently shown that the Concept Electronique-built prototype inures to Patent Owner’s benefit. We determine that Patent Owner has not. slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “in the art as “a person with at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or a substantively equivalent degree), in addition to two years of experience with systems that use short-range wireless communication, such as radio frequency identification (RFID) systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 12 (emphasis added); Ex. 1031 ¶ 18; see also Pet. 8 (adopting this definition). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Alyssa B. Apsel, defines a person of ordinary skill in the art as a person having “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical 7 Patent Owner does not contend in the Patent Owner Response that secondary considerations are present that would render the challenged claims patentable over the applied references. See Paper 11, 2–3. engineering (or an equivalent degree), and two years of experience with short-range wireless communication systems.” Ex. 2027 ¶ 13 (emphasis added); see PO Resp. 9, 45, 47. The proposed definitions differ primarily in level of academic achievement, with Patent Owner’s declarant proposing a lower level. Based on Exhibit 1003 (Attachment A) and Exhibit 2028, both Dr. Tentzeris and Dr. Apsel meet or exceed the requirements for qualification as a person of ordinary skill in the art under either definition. Moreover, neither party challenges the other party’s declarant’s credentials. Therefore, to the extent necessary, we adopt Dr. Apsel’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Specifically, Patent Owner contends that “[t]his method of modulating the power does not involve ‘setting’ the buffers to any particular value; it only involves changing the duty cycle of the input they receive.” Id. (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 58). Nevertheless, because Sears’s Figure 5 depicts a square wave provided by buffers 200A–200F, we are persuaded that Sears teaches a control circuit comprising binary ports or teaching or suggesting binary ports. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30, 31. In addition, Petitioner argues that buffers 200A–200F are “tristatable” because “buffers (200A–200F) are used to yield (1) a high level output, (2) a low level output, or (3) complete disconnection that amounts to a high impedance state.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 5, ll. 4–8, col. 6, ll. 39–46; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32, 33). Moreover, each buffer 200 may be “constructed from a CMOS hex inverter integrated circuit” that drives a load impedance that is either “a low impedance load, such as the electromagnetic antenna 108B, or a high or infinite impedance load.” Id. at 16 (quoting Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 36–42). Petitioner discusses the application of Sears’s disclosure of a CMOS hex inverter circuit and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this circuit teaches the control circuit recited in the challenged claims. Pet. 15–16; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 33 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that a tristatable CMOS inverter, as described in Sears, provides output in one of three states: logic 0, logic 1, and high impedance.”). Consequently, we are persuaded that Petitioner has identified sufficiently “the scope and content of the prior art . . . ; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue . . . ; and the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 6,700,551 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,700,551
• Sensus USA, Inc. v. Certified Measurement, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2015 · IPR2015-01439 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claim 43 unpatentable over any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the [P]etition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the [P]etition.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). For the reasons given below, on this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim of the ’453 patent. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’453 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s identification of the real parties-in-interest is incomplete, and that the Petition should be denied as failing to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). Prelim. Resp. 30–31. Patent Owner asserts that in a related litigation involving the ’453 patent, Petitioner identified an insurance company as covering some of the costs of defending the action against Patent Owner. See Ex. 2001. Patent Owner argues: A hallmark of indemnity or insurance agreements that are available to satisfy part or all of a judgment or to reimburse payments of same is an ability for the insurer or indemnitor to control over [sic] aspects of the litigation, including the defense and maintenance of an inter partes review which seek[s] to invalidate the subject patent. Prelim. Resp. 30. Patent Owner’s argument is generic and fails to identify any specific evidence that any parties other than those identified by Petitioner actually is exercising control over or could exercise control over this proceeding.1 Accordingly, we decline to deny the Petition on this basis. D. The References Petitioner relies on the following references: U.S. Patent No. 4,077,005, issued Feb. 28, 1978 (Ex. 1005, “Bishop”); U.S. Patent No. 5,199,068, issued Mar. 30, 1993 (Ex. 1006, “Cox”); U.S. Patent No. 5,689,442, issued Nov. 18, 1997 (Ex. 1007,” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “Petitioner does not propose a construction for “augmented measurement” aside from stating that it “is described in the individual claims of the patent.” Pet. 17. Nevertheless, Petitioner’s argument suggests that generating an “augmented measurement” requires effecting some combination of the elements recited in the claim—the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal. See Pet. 27 (asserting that Cox disclosing “combining” the previously recited elements of the claim in arguing that Cox teaches “generating an augmented measurement”). Thus, both Petitioner and Patent Owner recognize that generating an augmented measurement requires combining specified elements of the claim. We agree. The parties’ recognition that an augmented measurement requires combining specified elements of the claim is consistent with the specification of the ’453 patent. The ’453 patent explains that an “augmented measurement comprising the cleartext time plus the physical measurement” is created by adding a physical measurement of any physical parameter or event to a time. Ex. 1001, 7:66–8:2.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive because Petitioner fails to show that Bishop’s position P signal is formed from two separate signals based at least in part on two physical measurements. Petitioner’s cited portions of Bishop fail to disclose how position P is generated aside from stating that “position P of the ship is determined to an accuracy of + 2 nm . . . by the ship’s navigation equipment 48.” Ex. 1005, 2:63–66. Petitioner, however, has not identified where, if at all, Bishop discloses how the navigation equipment generates the position of the ship. Petitioner’s citations to Bishop’s column 3 refer to Bishop’s disclosure of generating a combined message, which Bishop designates as IS + P + T1, and then enciphers. See, e.g., id. at 3:7–23. Additionally, Petitioner’s reliance on paragraph 40 of the Nielson Declaration fares no better. Dr. Nielson’s testimony includes the same statements as the Petition without providing additional explanation or evidentiary support for us to conclude that Bishop expressly or inherently discloses that its position P signal is formed from two separate signals based at least in part on two physical measurements. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertion that Bishop discloses each and every element of claim 43 of the ’453 patent.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,289,453
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Imperium (IP) HoldingsInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2015 · IPR2015-01231 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “only if “the information presented in the [P]etition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the [P]etition.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). For the reasons given below, on this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim of the ’884 patent. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’884 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)

    “the setting step of claim 1. Petitioner, however, has not persuaded us, on this record, that Hashimoto likely discloses the claimed adjusting step. First, the citations and parentheticals in Petitioner’s claim charts do not, on their face, teach or suggest this step. Second, even though Petitioner points to Hashimoto’s disclosure of combining photoelectric charge accumulation time changes with gain control, Petitioner does not explain how Hashimoto actually combines these two features. Hashimoto’s discussion of gain control, in the context of Figure 10, suggests that gain is controlled via offsets, specifically offset A or offset B. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 11:15–20 6 In addition, Petitioner cites to paragraph 74 of the Neikirk Declaration (Pet. 31), which cites to the same portion of Hashimoto but does not provide additional explanation as to how this disclosure teachings the “adjusting” step of claim 1. Ex. 1003 ¶ 74 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:64–5:8; Ex. 1003, footnotes 1–5, 7). (“Accordingly, when the shutter speed is changed from 1/100, the gain is corrected or controlled with the offset, thus obtaining proper brightness control. The offset A is used when the shutter speed is changed from 1/100 to 1/50, and the offset B is used when the shutter speed is changed from 1/100 to a higher speed.”). In Hashimoto’s discussion of gain control, however, Petitioner does not identify, and we are unable to discern, a teaching of “adjusting the overall system gain by adjusting the integration time while maintaining the integration time at an integral multiple of the period of the periodic intensity.”7” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found

    “depend from claim 14. Petitioner relies upon the same teachings of Hashimoto, discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 14, in Petitioner’s challenges to (1) claims 1–6 and 14 as obvious over Hashimoto and Kinugawa; (2) claims 14 and 17–19 as obvious over Hashimoto and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art; (3) claims 17–19 as obvious over Hashimoto, Nishiyama, and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art; (4) claims 17–19 as obvious over Hashimoto, Nishiyama, Kinugawa, and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art; and (5) claims 17–19 as obvious over Hashimoto and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Pet. 31 (referring to Petitioner’s discussion of claim 1), 38 (referring to Petitioner’s discussion of claim 14). Petitioner does not assert that Kinugawa, Nishiyama, or the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art9 remedies the deficiencies discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 14, or that the “adjusting” step of claim 1 and the “gain control block” of claim 14 would have been obvious in light of any of these additional references or teachings. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above with respect to Hashimoto and claims 1 and 14, Petitioner has not established, on the record before us, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertions that as of 9 For the purposes of this Decision, we need not decide whether Petitioner’s reliance upon the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art violates 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), which limits the grounds under which a petitioner may request cancellation of claims in an inter partes review to “a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” (emphasis added). the effective filing date of the claimed invention: (1) claims 1–6 and 14 would have been obvious over Hashimoto and Kinugawa; (2) claims 14 and 17–19 would have been obvious over Hashimoto and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art; (3) claims 17–19 would have been obvious over Hashimoto, Nishiyama, and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art; (4) claims 17–19 would have been obvious over Hashimoto, Nishiyama, Kinugawa, and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art; and (5) claims 17–19 would have been obvious over Hashimoto and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 17

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,271,884
• Masterimage 3d, Inc. / Masterimage 3d Asia, LLC v. Reald Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2015 · IPR2015-00877 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–6 or 1–2, 6–11, and 18–20 unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a): THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines 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. Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, with the accompanying evidence, we are not persuaded, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of claims 1–11 and 18–20 of the ’934 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’934 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther

    “The term “cleanup polarizer” does not appear in any claim, but is used many times in the Specification of the ’934 patent, as well as in Svardal. Our analysis depends on the meaning of “cleanup polarizer” as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner proposes that “cleanup polarizer” should be understood as “an optical device which removes undesired polarization characteristics from light having one predominate polarization state of potentially insufficient purity.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed construction for purposes of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 18. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed construction for the term “cleanup polarizer.”4” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are persuaded sufficiently by Petitioner that Svardal discloses the above-noted elements of claim 1. However, claim 1 further recites: “a polarization switch subsystem operable to receive first and second light bundles from the first and second light paths, respectively, and to selectively translate both the polarization states of the first and second light bundles to one of a first output SOP and a second output SOP.” Ex. 1001, 8:6–10 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded sufficiently by Petitioner that the italicized portion of the above-quoted limitation is disclosed by Svardal. Petitioner regards variable retarder 132 in Svardal’s Figure 3 as the claimed polarization switch subsystem. Pet. 23. According to Petitioner, variable retarder 132 receives from PCA 116 the two polarized light beams after the polarization of one of the beams has been rotated to match the polarization of the other. Id. Even assuming that as true, Petitioner does not account for the requirement that the polarization switch subsystem is operable to receive first and second light bundles from the first and second light paths, respectively. For instance, Petitioner acknowledges that the output from PCA 116 is a single beam of polarized light. Id. at 20. As discussed above, the two separate beams of light generated within PCA 116, on two different light paths, are recombined into a single beam on a single path prior to exiting PCA 116. The Petition identifies no disclosure of anything other than a single polarized beam as outputted by PCA 116.” slip op. at 14

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

    “As discussed below, Petitioner’s reasoning for adding PCA 116 from Svardal’s Figure 3 embodiment to Svardal’s Figure 6 embodiment, at a location just upstream of clean-up polarizer 240, is not based on sufficiently rational underpinnings, but on hindsight in light of Patent Owner’s claimed invention. First, Petitioner rewrites the disclosure of Svardal, on the basis of an alleged inaccuracy or mistake in the description within Svardal, and does not sufficiently explore alternative ways to read Svardal’s disclosure that do not manifest an inaccuracy or mistake. Second, Petitioner regards Svardal’s Figure 6 as an engineering blueprint used for production purposes, rather than as what it actually is, i.e., a schematic diagram that shows the significant components, but may not show all components, that one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize as present in a more detailed production blueprint. These two incorrect premises combine to create the erroneous basis on which Petitioner proposes its rationale to add PCA 116 from Svardal’s Figure 3 embodiment to Svardal’s Figure 6 embodiment, immediately upstream of clean-up polarizer 240. Petitioner’s approach and reasoning reflect reliance on hindsight in view of Patent Owner’s claimed invention, which is inappropriate for an obviousness analysis. More specifically, Svardal’s disclosure is not that there may or may not be clean-up polarizer 240, in the Figure 6 embodiment, depending on what particular imaging element 234 is used. Rather, it is that clean-up polarizer 240 is there, in the Figure 6 embodiment, with no stated contingencies or dependence on the specific choice for imaging element 234. Thus, if the presence of clean-up polarizer 240 indicates that input light supplied to the clean-up polarizer already has one predominate polarization, which is the position Petitioner put forth regarding the meaning of a clean-up polarizer, then Petitioner should consider whether an initial polarizer also is present in the system, albeit not expressly illustrated in Figure 6. Neither Petitioner nor its declarant, Mr. Brennesholtz, sufficiently explored that scenario. The conclusion that the reference in Svardal’s disclosure to cleanup polarizer 240 in the Figure 6 embodiment is inaccurate at least for one selection of the imaging element is not well supported. Svardal’s disclosure supports the position that not all components of its projection system may be expressly illustrated in its figures. For instance, Svardal states in connection with its Figure 2 embodiment that: [A]n image engine using LCOS panels (or ordinary liquid crystal panels) typically also includes a polarizer positioned optically upstream of the liquid crystal material to polarize the light beam before it is directed onto the LCOS panel. Ex. 1004, 5:14–18. In that regard, no such polarizer is actually illustrated in Figure 2. Thus, it is incorrect to assume that a polarizer, if present at all in a system, necessarily must be illustrated in a corresponding figure. Furthermore, Svardal describes in connection with its Figure 6 embodiment that clean-up polarizer 240 and variable retarder 244 may be located upstream of imaging element 234, rather than downstream as illustrated in the Figure. Id. at 8:44–51. Thus, an initial polarizer also may be present upstream of imaging element 234, regardless of which imaging element is selected. Petitioner’s approach to reading Svardal’s disclosure appears not to be” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,220,934
• TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2014 · IPR2014-00259 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied TRW’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–3, 9, 11, 12, 16, 20, 24, 26, and 28 because the petition did not sufficiently support its anticipation and obviousness arguments.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). III.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not reached

    “In the Petition, Petitioner cited this portion of Bottesch not as teaching that Bottesch is capable of performing the claimed function, but rather as supporting the argument that “the limitation is . . . disclosed by Bottesch.” See Pet. 18–19 (quoting Bottesch’s “lateral tracking capabilities” and the disclosure regarding recognizing the presence of an object as noted above). Petitioner, however, did not argue that these disclosures show that Bottesch is capable of performing the “high level function” claimed. Even if this argument in the Petition were intended to support the position that Bottesch is capable of performing the claimed function rather than actually disclosing the claimed function, the Petition fails to include the argument raised in the Rehearing Request—that Bottesch’s disclosure of performing one high level function means that its microcomputer is capable of performing another high level function (e.g., with additional programming).” slip op. at 3

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

    “respect to the “said control analyzing particular groupings of photosensor elements . . . while ignoring other particular groupings of photosensor elements” element of claim 1 because that was the portion of Vellacott cited in the Petition as allegedly rendering it obvious “to develop specific algorithms for vision systems to sample ‘a collection of pixels,’ while ignoring other pixels, [to] determine the presence of an object or item of interest.” Pet. 35; see also id. at 34 (citing Vellacott’s “top section” discussing an edge detection algorithm); Decision 12–13. Thus, in considering Petitioner’s arguments with respect to this claim element, we focused the Decision where Petitioner directed us to focus. Additionally, the Petition did not tie the use of Vellacott’s CMOS image sensor and edge detection algorithm to the use of such an algorithm in what Petitioner now refers to in the Rehearing Request as “the rear view mirror headlight detection embodiment.” See Req. Reh’g 7. Further, Petitioner’s argument as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to replace Bottesch’s CCD camera with the CMOS image sensor of Vellacott, does not, in and of itself, mean that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain Vellacott’s edge detection algorithm when combined with Bottesch or to “develop specific algorithms for vision systems” (Pet. 35 (emphasis added)) as alleged in the Petition. The argument and further explanation provided in the Rehearing Request was not in the Petition, and may not be raised for the first time on rehearing. Accordingly, because the Petition did not explain sufficiently how the substitution of Vellacott’s CMOS image sensor for Bottesch’s CCD camera allegedly would have rendered it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to develop specific algorithms for vision systems, such as that recited in claim 1, we did not abuse our discretion in denying institution on the asserted ground.” slip op. at 4

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,344,261

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.