• Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC (D/B/A Insta360) v. Gopro, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 31, 2025 · IPR2024-01434 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the single claimed design was obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “shown that Chen686, alone or in combination with the various secondary references, teaches or suggests a camera having the same overall visual appearance of the claimed design. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in challenging the patentability of the ’435 patent’s claim over Chen686 and the asserted secondary references.” slip op. at 30

  • Other 314aNot reached

    “These deficiencies in analysis raise the question of whether the Petition adequately identifies the number of actual challenges, and evidence supporting each, with the degree of particularity required of petitions in our forum. The Petition does not explain why so many grounds are necessary under the circumstances or why the Board should impose on Patent Owner the burden of defending against so many challenges. See generally Pet. An inter partes review based on 24 distinct grounds raised against a single claim, supported by analysis lacking in particularity, potentially burdens Patent Owner unduly and makes inefficient use of the Board’s resources. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019),22 56 (“The AIA was ‘designed to establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs.’” (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, at 40 (2011), 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, 69 (Post grant reviews were meant to be “quick and cost effective alternatives to litigation”)). Because we understand enough of the Petition’s analysis to address each group of asserted grounds on the merits, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based solely on this issue.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner submits that a designer of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in industrial design or an equivalent field, or two years of experience designing cameras or camera housings.” Pet. 11 (citing Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 22–24). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposal regarding a designer of ordinary skill in the art. See Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 22–24.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “In its claim construction section, Petitioner states that the ’435 patent “encompasses a rectangular body with flat faces, a rectangular lens cover extending outward from the front of the body, rectangular buttons/access elements, and rectangles for displays” and “[a]s a whole . . . gives an ordinary designer an overall visual impression of a rectangular design for a camera/camera housing.” Pet. 12 (citing Bressler Decl. ¶¶ 25–26). These descriptions are incredibly general and do not provide an adequate understanding of the overall visual appearance of the claimed design. Moreover, we do not find them helpful in our analysis and, therefore, do not adopt them as a claim construction. Patent Owner does not explicitly address claim construction. See” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham
• Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-00949 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–14 and 16–20 are unpatentable over Kim; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable over Chang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is essentially the same as Petitioner’s, for example requiring a bachelor’s degree in science or engineering and “at least two years of relevant work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information.” Id.; Pet. 9. In view of the similarity, our record now before us, and as we did in our Institution Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art as it is essentially the same as that proposed by Patent Owner. Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’619 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 10

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

    “C. Claim Construction We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner indicate that any claim terms require construction. See generally Petition; PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision where no claim terms are in dispute, we need not explicitly construe any claim terms.” slip op. at 11

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

    “What these cases and examples clearly articulate, is that whether there is sufficient description in an anticipation reference for linking different disclosures, elements, and embodiments, is particularly case and fact dependent. Moreover, a finding of anticipation resting upon a reference’s disclosures of elements in different embodiments turns on whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the reference suggests arranging the elements of the embodiments to one another in the same way as the challenged claims. For the reasons that follow, we determine that there is sufficient description and teaching in Kim such that the “combined button” disclosed by Kim, for example in Figure 10(b), can be the same “combined button” as discussed in the embodiment of Figure 18.” slip op. at 28

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

    “As to Patent Owner’s first and second arguments, as we discussed in detail above with respect to anticipation, we find that there is sufficient evidence in Kim itself of contextual and even express links between the various combined button embodiments and Figure 18. Section II.D.2.b)(1)– (4). We have already determined “that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Kim to disclose the ‘combined button’ structure and function that could be implemented on the face or sidewall of a device.” Id. We likewise determine, based on the same evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Kim to suggest that the combined button structure and function, for example in the embodiment of Figure 10(b), could be implemented in an opening on the face or sidewall of a device. Obviousness does not require an instruction manual on how to physically incorporate or combine the disclosures of two embodiments in a reference. As KSR informs us, “in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. Moreover, in this case we have only one prior art patent, Kim, so at least the pieces of the puzzle are all in the same box. The persuasive testimony of Dr. Berger that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with electronic devices with sealed and/or insulated button assemblies, and would understand that those assemblies were not limited to the front face of a device,” is unrebutted in this case. Ex. 1003 ¶ 110. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Given the background knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art in conjunction with the motivation and teachings in Kim itself for placing sufficient motivation to support the combination of Kim’s Figure 10(b) embodiment with the sidewall placement of the combined button taught in Figure 18 for obviousness purposes. It is well-settled that a single prior art obviousness reference itself can provide motivation for the combination. See General Elec. Co. v. Raytheon Techs. Corp., 983 F.3d 1334, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Reversing the Board’s finding of nonobviousness over a single prior art reference, the Court explained that “the Board’s approach would require a motivation to combine each element of the claim—even those present together in a reference. This analysis unduly dissects prior art references into collections of individual elements, requiring a party showing obviousness to re-do the work already done in the prior art reference.”). Patent Owner’s third argument is unavailing because although Dr. Anthony testifies that “implementing the fingerprint sensor assembly of Kim’s Figure 10 embodiment in the ‘lateral surface’ of Kim’s Figure 18 embodiment would have complicated the manufacturing process for the resulting mobile device,” Dr. Anthony does not provide testimony or evidence that implementing the combined button on the sidewall would have been difficult or beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2009 ¶ 73. We credit Dr. Berger who explains persuasively that “[p]rior to the ’619 patent’s earliest alleged priority date of June 19, 2017, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that a mobile electronic device could include one or more button assemblies in a sidewall.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1013, 4:40, 19:42–20:4, Figs. 13B, 17, 19A, 19B). It is well-settled that a person of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”).” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 10,866,619 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,866,619
• Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-00948 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable: claim 1 is anticipated by Kim and claims 1–10 are obvious over Kim; the Board did not reach the Jung and Meyers or Chang grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “one hand that “[a] ‘biometric characteristic’ or a ‘biometric identifier,’ as used herein, may refer to a human characteristic that is so distinctive and measureable that a particular human individual may be identified.” Ex. 1001, 5:9–14 (emphasis added). On the other hand, the ’619 patent also explains that “[t]he sensed human physical characteristic may vary widely, but may include fingerprint, palm veins, DNA, heart rate, and blood pressure.” Ex. 1001, 4:57–59. And, according to Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Anthony, heart rate and blood pressure, for instance, are biometric characteristics that do not necessarily “identify” a particular human being. See Ex. 2009 ¶ 28 (Dr. Anthony testifying that “[i]n my opinion, ‘heart rate’ and ‘blood pressure’ are embodiments of biometric characteristics that . . . are not sufficiently distinctive to enable identification of a particular human individual.”). Considering the written description as a whole, along with Patent Owner’s argument and Dr. Anthony’s testimony, we agree that “biometric characteristic” does not need a specific construction in this proceeding. We disagree with Petitioner that there is an actual dispute as to this term because, apart from an express construction, Kim discloses a fingerprint sensor. Pet. Reply 2. Regardless, our Decision does not turn on a specific construction of “biometric characteristic.” At least Kim discloses a fingerprint sensor which satisfies the biometric characteristic limitation in the challenged claims under either a plain and ordinary meaning of this term or under Petitioner’s proposed construction. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 14:22–24” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is essentially the same as Petitioner’s, for example requiring a bachelor’s degree in science or engineering and “at least two years of relevant work experience with capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information.” Id.; Pet. 9. In view of the similarity, our analysis is not affected by choosing one over the other. On the complete record now before us, and as we did in our Institution Decision, we rely on same as that proposed by Patent Owner. Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’619 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima 261 F.3d at 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Berger, in this case. Dr. Berger testifies that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a sealed and/or insulated button assembly from one location on a device can be constructed equally on a rear or sidewall of the device, as taught by at least Polany (Ex-1013).” Id. ¶ 110 (citing U.S. Patent No. 7,535,799 to further that “[p]rior to the ’619 patent’s earliest alleged priority date of June 19, 2017, a person of ordinary skill in the art would also have known that button assemblies in mobile electronic devices should be sealed in order to prevent ingress of potentially damaging moisture and dust.” Id. ¶ 48. Dr. Berger points to U.S. Patent No. 10,133,910 to Chang, explaining that “Chang discloses that ‘as users’ needs for portable terminals have been gradually diversified, a [home] key [button] used in the portable terminals includes a waterproof structure in order to prevent a fluid from infiltrating into the interior of the portable terminals.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1015, 1:32–35). Dr. Berger maintains that sealing and attaching buttons to an electronic device was a common technique, testifying that Polany discloses that “[o]ne skilled the art would recognize many different methods of fastening a control feature into the housing, such as, but not limited to, screw, bolts, snap fit components, adhesives, press fits, co-molded components, overmolded components, ultrasonically welded components, rotational fits, wedge fits, and other manufacturing means of effecting the assembly of components” Id. ¶ 52 (quoting Ex. 1013, 21:5–11, 21:31–37). The fact that there would be certain design and structural differences between a combined button on the face of the electronic device, and a combined button on the side wall of the electronic device does not undermine Dr. Berger’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to implement a button in a sidewall of an electronic device. See id. ¶ 47 (testifying “[f]or example, Polany discloses that the buttons (1315-1318) along the sidewall of the device included structures and surfaces that could be manually pressed by a user” and citing Ex. 1013, 4:40, 19:42–20:4, Figs. 13B, 17, 19A, 19B).” slip op. at 38

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

    “What these cases and examples clearly articulate is that whether there is sufficient description in an anticipation reference for linking different disclosures, elements, and embodiments, is particularly case and fact dependent. Moreover, a finding of anticipation resting upon a reference’s disclosures of elements in different embodiments turns on whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the reference suggests arranging the elements of the embodiments to one another in the same way as the challenged claims.. For the reasons that follow, we determine that there is sufficient description and teaching in Kim such a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “combined button” disclosed by Kim, for example in Figure 10(b), can be the same “combined button” as discussed in the embodiment of Figure 18.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,866,619 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,866,619
• Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-00865 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 103 over Carr and Lauka, with additional references for the dependent-claim grounds, because the challenged claims lack priority support in the ’848 application.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Instacart submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of electronic commerce” and that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–25). Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art would have been “someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like” and that “industry experience can make up for a lack of technical training, and more education can make up for a lack of industry experience.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 19–23). But, as Consumeron’s expert acknowledges, Consumeron’s proposed definition “is not materially different” from Instacart’s. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 22. Accordingly, while we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by Instacart our findings and analysis would be the same under Consumeron’s proposal.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “8 Consumeron argues Dr. Houh’s testimony should be given little weight because he “admitted he did not evaluate what the ’848 Application reasonably conveys to a skilled artisan.” Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2011, 74:8– 76:6, 83:4–84:1, 92:22–95:5). We disagree. Dr. Houh’s testimony indicates that he properly considered what the ’848 application reasonably conveys to a POSITA. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52, 56, 58, 61, 65. The portions of his cross-examination testimony cited by Consumeron do not suggest otherwise. For the reasons explained below, we credit Dr. Houh’s testimony over the competing interpretations offered by Consumeron and Dr. Mitzenmacher. 9 The dissent criticizes the majority’s analysis as “overly narrow” and too focused on the preferred embodiment. See Dissent 7–8. We disagree. Our analysis considers the entirety of the ’848 application, including all of the passages cited by Consumeron and the dissent.” slip op. at 13

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “But it does not follow that an agent encountering a stock-out would necessarily respond according to the specific steps recited in claims 1 and 14.10 For example, instead of sending information about a replacement product, the agent could travel to another location to look for the same product, or notify the customer that the desired product could not be found and terminate the transaction. Because the ’848 application only contemplates scenarios where a product can be located, it does not describe the agent’s response in the event the identified product cannot be located or is unavailable, much less reasonably convey possession of a method comprising the specific, responsive steps in claims 1 and 14.11” slip op. at 17

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “construed the terms “acquisition request” and “acquiring” in our final written decision in the related 1357 IPR to encompass “not only a request for a delivery agent to shop for and purchase goods, but also a request for the agent to pick up or obtain pre-paid goods.” See 1357 IPR, Paper 35 at 11. It is undisputed that the ’465 patent at issue here and the ’835 patent at issue in the 1357 IPR are related and share essentially identical specifications, figures, and claim terms. See Pet. Reply 16; PO Resp. 38 n.6. Thus, for the same reasons as in our final written decision in the related 1357 IPR, we likewise determine here that Instacart’s construction of “acquisition request” is the correct one. See SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Where multiple patents ‘derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.’” (quoting NTP, Inc., v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Consumeron provides no persuasive justification for us to depart from our prior reasoning in the related 1357 IPR.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,238,465 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,238,465
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00745 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 8–22 were not shown unpatentable because Mills did not disclose the required embedded structure and Markel combined with Mills did not teach it; the revised motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached

    “Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend asserts that in “the event the Board finds at least one challenged [Revised Motion to Amend] claim unpatentable, [Patent Owner] respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion with respect to the corresponding proposed substitute claim(s).” Paper 27, 1. Because we determine that Petitioner has not established that any of the challenged claims 1–4 and 8–22 are unpatentable, Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend is moot.” slip op. at 61

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 11

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

    “structure where a lead is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from other embodiments where a lead is merely positioned against or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 36–37. The Specification describes distinct embodiments such as “lead 472 of the heart sensor can be positioned against the back surface of bezel 460,” or “[a]lternatively, lead 472 can be placed within the thickness of bezel 460 (e.g., in a pocket within the bezel wall), but underneath the outer surface of the bezel.” Ex. 9:44–48. We agree with Patent Owner, and Dr. Kenny, that “[t]his passage distinguishes a lead that is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from a lead that is merely ‘positioned against’ or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 33–35). See also Ex. 2008, 31:10–33:18, 109:18–110:19 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Oslan, suggesting that a first component or object in parallel contact with and positioned under a second component or object would not necessarily indicate that the first component or object is embedded in the second component or object). Similarly, we also agree that “the claims of the ’257 use the term ‘embedded in’ while also using the word ‘embedded’ in other contexts, which” indicates distinct claim scope for “the term ‘embedded in,’” versus “the broader term ‘embedded.’” Ex. 2003 ¶ 38. For instance, claim 9 distinctly requires “embedded with,” which is a broader term that, according to Dr. Kenny, encompasses embodiments where a lead may be adjacent/parallel to the first portion of the enclosure. Id.” slip op. at 18

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

    “under the exterior of the first portion” (see Pet. 21–22, 24–25; Pet. Reply 4); and (3) leaf spring 62 is embedded in housing 12 and electrode 14 (see Pet. 22–24). None of Petitioner’s mappings disclose every element of claim 1 and Petitioner improperly jumps between these various mappings without fully examining a single mapping for each and every limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 18–25. In essence, Petitioner invites the Board to piece together a single theory that meets all claim elements from these disparate theories that each require distinct structure within Mills. See Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD., IPR2017-01112, Paper 11, at 13 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2017) (“Petitioner is inviting us to assume the role of archeologist of the record, which invitation we decline.”).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,076,257
• Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00949 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

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

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,866,619
• Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2023 · IPR2023-00865 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,238,465
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Oct 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00745 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

  • BurdenOther

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

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,076,257
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00635 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, principally because Rothkopf did not disclose an electrode positioned on the carrier member.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (to anticipate a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “a single prior art reference must expressly or inherently disclose each claim limitation”). Moreover, “[b]ecause the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Whether a reference anticipates is assessed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“‘[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.” (second and third alterations in original) (quoting In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991))). slip op. at 10

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

    “member.” On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “Independent claim 1 recites “a carrier member formed from a transparent material.” Ex. 1001, 56:13. Independent claim 9 recites “a carrier member having a circular carrier profile and positioned over the circular rear opening.” Id. at 57:20–21. Independent claim 15 recites “a carrier member protruding outward from an external surface of the housing member.” Id. at 58:10–11. None of these phrases is written in the form of a “means for” performing a function, the Petition does not identify a recited function,5 and Petitioner does not address the issue of whether the overall limitation recites adequate structure for performing any such function. See 5 On the conference call, Petitioner represented that “the Petition identifies carrying or supporting electrodes to be the function of the carrier member.” Ex. 1051, 49:3–10 (citing Pet. 10–12). The cited section of the Petition quotes the Specification, not the claim. Pet. 10. However, the focus of a means-plus-function analysis is the function recited in the claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). And, the Petition associates the function of supporting the electrodes with “carrier assembly” not “carrier member.” See Pet. 10–11 (“Petitioner interprets the claim term ‘carrier assembly’ according[ly] to mean any appropriate structure that supports the electrodes and, optionally, optical components.”). Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The first step is to determine whether a claim limitation is drafted in means-plusfunction format, which requires us to construe the limitation to determine whether it connotes sufficiently definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art.”). Additionally, regardless as to whether “Courts have construed ‘member’ style claim terms as nonstructural” under the particular facts before those courts, it was incumbent upon Petitioner—particularly in light of the “carrier” modifier—to demonstrate that “carrier member” is a nonce term under the facts of the case before us, i.e. whether the term is a generic placeholder that a person of ordinary skill in the art of wearable electronic devices/watches would not recognize as a name for sufficiently definite structure. Pet. 11; Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348 (“In making the assessment of whether the limitation in question is a means-plus-function term subject to the strictures of § 112, para. 6, our cases have emphasized that the essential inquiry is . . . whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”); see id. at 1350 (explaining that a nonce word is a generic term “that reflect[s] nothing more than verbal constructs [that] may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word ‘means’ because they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.”); see also Kyocera, 22 F.4th 1380 (the court, in Petitioner’s cited case, determining, as part of its analysis, that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the claimed ‘lifter member’ to have ‘a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for a structure.’”). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown persuasively that “carrier member” is a means-plus-function term.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We find to be persuasive Patent Owner’s argument that “the Petition fails to cite anything in Rothkopf that describes electrodes attached to the ‘rear cover 608.’” Prelim. Resp. 23. Rothkopf discloses several embodiments of varying configurations. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–27. Petitioner, in the block quoted contention above, stitches together several statements from various points in the Specification that individually are correct descriptions of an aspect of a particular embodiment or example but, together, fail to constitute a disclosure of an embodiment having electrodes positioned on the rear cover. For example, Rothkopf, in the paragraph 148 cited by Petitioner, states that “[i]n some embodiments, the biosensor module 710 includes the rear cover 608” and, “[a]s described in more detail . . . with respect to FIG. 16, the biosensor module 710 may include one or more light sources, one or more photodetectors, and one or more electrodes or conductive elements.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 148 (emphasis added). Thus, the biosensor module (mapped to the carrier assembly, not the carrier member) might include a rear cover and might include an electrode. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the electrode, when present, is positioned on the cover (mapped to the carrier member). Petitioner points to Rothkopf’s paragraph 201 as support for the proposition that “Rothkopf describes an embodiment where the electrodes are positioned on the cover 608.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 201). That paragraph provides that, “[a]s described above with respect to FIG. 6, in some embodiments, the biosensors are disposed relative to or attached to a rear cover 608 that is formed from an optically transparent material and is configured to be positioned with the opening of the housing 601.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 201. The paragraph does not describe an electrode as an exemplary biosensor in such embodiments. Rather, the paragraph goes on to describe the rear cover’s use with light sources 1611–1613 and detector 1614, i.e. optical sensor components. See id. (“The convex curved area of the rear cover 608 may include one or more windows or apertures that provide operational access to one or more internal components located within the housing. For example, the rear cover 608 may include an array of windows, each window including an aperture or opening for a respective light source 1611–1613 and/or the detector 1614.”). This description is consistent with Figure 16, which is relied on by Petitioner, where those optical sensor components are positioned on or under rear cover 608 (shaded orange in Petitioner’s annotated figure above) while electrodes 1601 and 1602 are positioned on the rear face of the housing (shaded in red) and thereby contact the user’s skin. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 190, 196 (“In this example [of Figure 16], a first electrode 1601 and second electrode 1602 are disposed on the rear face of the device 100. The first 1601 and second 1602 electrodes may be configured to make contact with the skin of the user’s wrist when the device is being worn.”). We determine that Petitioner has not shown adequately that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Rothkopf to disclose an electrode positioned on the carrier member, as recited in independent claims 9 and 15 and, by extension, claims 13 and 14, which depend from independent claim 9. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its anticipation challenge (Ground 1).” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,987,054
• DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 22, 2023 · IPR2023-00265 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that DeWaal, alone or with Schugar, renders claims 1, 4–15, 17–19, or 32 unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “recited wager. Pet. 35. However, Petitioner does not explain adequately how this wager “coincides with each of the defined number of legs” of DeWaal’s bonus game (which Petitioner maps to the recited multi-outcome wagering event (id. at 23)) as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner refers to the player’s input for each round of bonus game. Id. at 35. As explained above, DeWaal discloses that a player’s selection of a winning outcome for each round of the bonus game is independent of the wager made by the player in the base game. As acknowledged by Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Crevelt, DeWaal’s wager allows “a player [to] qualify for the bonus game,” but “players of the bonus event must also ‘make an input in association with the plurality of outcomes in each round as indicated by block 108’ in FIG. 3.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 141 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 129). Nor has Petitioner explained adequately how DeWaal identifies “players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs” of the bonus game “based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner again refers to the player’s input for each round of the bonus game. Pet. 40. The wager in DeWaal is the bet placed to play the initial game, which occurs prior to the multi-round bonus event. Ex. 1004 ¶ 83. That wager does not, however, serve to identify a winner of a leg of DeWaal’s bonus game. Instead, players advance by making separate choices at each leg of the bonus game. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 119, 127. That is, it is those choices, not the wager, that determines whether the player advances at each leg. As such, we are not persuaded DeWaal describes “identifying one or more players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims.” slip op. at 16

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

    “As noted above, Petitioner maps DeWaal’s base game wager to the recited wager. Pet. 35. However, Petitioner does not explain adequately how this wager “coincides with each of the defined number of legs” of DeWaal’s bonus game (which Petitioner maps to the recited multi-outcome wagering event (id. at 23)) as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner refers to the player’s input for each round of bonus game. Id. at 35. As explained above, DeWaal discloses that a player’s selection of a winning outcome for each round of the bonus game is independent of the wager made by the player in the base game. As acknowledged by Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Crevelt, DeWaal’s wager allows “a player [to] qualify for the bonus game,” but “players of the bonus event must also ‘make an input in association with the plurality of outcomes in each round as indicated by block 108’ in FIG. 3.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 141 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 129). Nor has Petitioner explained adequately how DeWaal identifies “players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs” of the bonus game “based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims. Rather, Petitioner again refers to the player’s input for each round of the bonus game. Pet. 40. The wager in DeWaal is the bet placed to play the initial game, which occurs prior to the multi-round bonus event. Ex. 1004 ¶ 83. That wager does not, however, serve to identify a winner of a leg of DeWaal’s bonus game. Instead, players advance by making separate choices at each leg of the bonus game. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 119, 127. That is, it is those choices, not the wager, that determines whether the player advances at each leg. As such, we are not persuaded DeWaal describes “identifying one or more players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs based on the wager” as required by the challenged claims.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that DeWaal discloses or teaches a wager as recited in independent claims 1 and 32. Petitioner’s reliance on Schugar to teach a partial buy-out offer does not correct this deficiency. See Pet. 55–58.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Independent claims 1 and 32 include several limitations involving “the wager.” First, the wager is received “in response to input from a player desiring to participate in the multi-outcome wagering event” (“receiving recitation”). Ex. 1001, 33:25–30, 40:7–11. The claims here further recite that the wager must “coincide[] with each of the defined number of legs.” Id. Second, the claims then identify “one or more players eligible to win each of the defined number of legs based on the wager.” Id. at 33:39–42, 40:20–23. Accordingly, we construe claims 1 and 32 to set out a method where the wager (1) enters the player into the event (and, thus, is set before the event) and (2) is of a nature such that it serves as the metric by which the player is evaluated at each leg to determine whether the player remains eligible to win the event.2 Neither party offers a claim construction of this term.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,704,338

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.