• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2016 · IPR2016-00018 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Arista did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 6–9, 12, 13, and 17–20 were unpatentable over Chau or Chau and Wils.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review of claims 1, 2, 6–9, 12, 13, and 17–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,051,211 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’211 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Cisco Systems, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 6–9, 12, 13, and 17–20 of the ’211 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner’s only apparent contention for Chau’s disclosure that the first and second LANs are both usable for simultaneous transmission “subsequent to” the aggregation of LANs, is that “the simultaneous transmission occurs as a result of the grouping of the first LAN (channel C2) and second LAN (channel C1).” Pet. 19–20, citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 54. The Lin declaration is similarly worded, and like the Petition, is silent as to whether Chau’s alleged simultaneous transmission occurs “subsequent to,” i.e., after the aggregation of LANs. Petitioner’s argument of simultaneous transmission occurring “as a result of” alleged aggregation of LANs is unavailing, because “subsequent to” means, “after,” not “as a result of.” In fact, in the related ’975 IPR, we expressly rejected the Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “as a result of” for “subsequent to.” See Section II.A. Neither the Petition nor the Lin declaration (Ex. 1014) cite any evidence of simultaneous transmission occurring “after” aggregation of LANs in Chau. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s showing demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as to claim 1 being anticipated by Chau.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “In addition, as we determined in the ’975 IPR, for purposes of this decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction of “subsequent to” is its ordinary and customary meaning, namely, “after.” See Case IPR2015-00975, slip op. at 7–8 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2015) (declining to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “as a result of” for “subsequent to”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner’s only apparent contention for Chau’s disclosure that the first and second LANs are both usable for simultaneous transmission “subsequent to” the aggregation of LANs, is that “the simultaneous transmission occurs as a result of the grouping of the first LAN (channel C2) and second LAN (channel C1).” Pet. 19–20, citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 54. The Lin declaration is similarly worded, and like the Petition, is silent as to whether Chau’s alleged simultaneous transmission occurs “subsequent to,” i.e., after the aggregation of LANs. Petitioner’s argument of simultaneous transmission occurring “as a result of” alleged aggregation of LANs is unavailing, because “subsequent to” means, “after,” not “as a result of.” In fact, in the related ’975 IPR, we expressly rejected the Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “as a result of” for “subsequent to.” See Section II.A. Neither the Petition nor the Lin declaration (Ex. 1014) cite any evidence of simultaneous transmission occurring “after” aggregation of LANs in Chau. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s showing demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail as to claim 1 being anticipated by Chau.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,051,211
• Smart Modular Technologies Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2016 · IPR2014-01372 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–4, 14–20, 27, and 29 not unpatentable because Averbuj did not disclose a control module configured to generate the claimed address signals.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on a comparison of Dr. Bagherzadeh’s and Dr. Sechen’s declarations (Exs. 1009, 2019), we find Dr. Bagherzadeh has a broader range of educational and work experience, and, therefore, accord greater weight to his opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Bagherzadeh’s opinion is consistent with our finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art in our Final Written Decision in IPR-970. We, therefore, adopt our finding in IPR-970 as to the level of ordinary skill in the art: [A] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’434 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or in a related field and at least one year of work experience relating to memory systems, and would be familiar with the design of memory devices, memory modules, and BIST. IPR-970 FWD, 10–11 (noting that our finding was “based on our review of the ’434 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’434 patent and cited prior art”).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded by Dr. Bagherzadeh’s testimony because it is devoid of specific facts and analysis as to what led him to conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim term “generate” in the manner Petitioner proposes. See id. Dr. Bagherzadeh does not explain how the IEEE definition supports an interpretation of generate as “cause or initiate transmission,” terms that do not appear in the IEEE definition. See id. Nor does Dr. Bagherzadeh identify other extrinsic evidence which he believes to be consistent with an interpretation of “generate” as meaning “cause or initiate transmission.” See id. Likewise, Dr. Bagherzadeh has not explained why he believes the ’434 patent “describe[s] generating as initiating or transmitting” (Ex. 1009 ¶ 28), as these terms do not appear in the cited portions of the ’434 patent. See Ex. 1008, 6:3–5, 10:67–11:2, 6:14–17. Accordingly, Dr. Bagherzadeh’s testimony does not persuade us to accept Petitioner’s interpretation of “generate” as meaning “cause.”” slip op. at 15

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

    “supports a finding that a customary meaning of “generate” to one of ordinary skill in the art is “cause.”1 We, therefore, determine the broadest reasonable 1 Petitioner relies on Webster’s II, for a definition of “cause.” See Reply 4, 6–8 (citing Ex. 1032, 3). Having determined the broadest reasonable interpretation of “generate” does not encompass “cause,” we do not find this evidence relevant to our claim construction analysis. construction of “generate” is “produce” for the reasons stated above and in our Final Written Decision in IPR-970. We adopt and incorporate by reference our analysis and construction of the term “generate” in our Final Written Decision in IPR-970 (IPR-970 FWD, 24–33).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Moreover, the evidence in this proceeding fails to support a finding that Averbuj’s BIST controller 4 is configured to generate address signals for testing the memory devices in the manner claimed. In Averbuj, the algorithms (i.e., CMD_DATA containing OP CODE such as SET ADDRESS (see Ex. 1011, 4:4–12, 5:19–21, Table 1)) communicated to sequencers 8 are either received by user interface 22 via external input (id. at 5:41–43) or generated by another component (i.e., a component that is not part of BIST controller 4 circuitry) and stored in algorithm memory 20 (see Ex. 2012, 30:23–24, 41:1–4, 54:21–22, 55:6–25, 55:20–56:9 (wherein Dr. Bagherzadeh testifies that OP CODE residing in the algorithm memory of BIST controller 4 are generated by hand or by a tool, e.g., a compiler, and that “99 percent of the designs or chips do not have a compiler on-board”)). Multiplexer 24 selects one of the algorithms (i.e., CMD_DATA) and BIST controller 4 provides to sequencers 8 the same CMD_DATA (e.g., address signals) without transformation or modification. See Ex. 1011, 4:4–12, 5:16–21; Ex. 2012, 54:8–13 (“Averbuj Figure 2, without consideration of any other disclosure in Averbuj, illustrates that a multiplexer selects an input from the algorithm memory and the output [] reflect[s] what’s in the input, based on the selection.”). Based on our interpretation of the terms “configured to” and “generate,” as discussed above, the claim recitation “a control module configured to generate address . . . signals for testing the memory devices” (claims 1, 20, and 29) does not read on Averbuj’s BIST controller 4, because the SET ADDRESS signal output by BIST controller 4 is produced by a component external to BIST controller 4, and merely selected by multiplexer 24 and provided to sequencers 8 without transformation or modification by BIST controller 4. In sum, after considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Averbuj discloses “a control module configured to generate address . . . signals for testing the memory devices” as recited in independent claims 1, 20, and 29. Petitioner does not correct this deficiency in its challenges as to dependent claims 2–4, 14–19, and 27. See Pet. 32–39; 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4 (“A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.”). Because Petitioner has not identified in Averbuj a teaching of each and every limitation recited in claims 1–4, 14–20, 27, and 29, Petitioner has not met its burden to show these claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Averbuj.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,001,434 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,001,434
• Atoptech, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2016 · IPR2014-01159 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 23, 24, and 27 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 31 was not shown anticipated, and claim 26 was not shown obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision to Institute, we construed “place and route unit (PRU).” We determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term is, “a section of the IC design created to represent the physical partitioning of the IC design.” Dec. to Inst., 10. Neither party disputes that construction in their post-institution filings.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “in the underlying patent. In re Cuozzo, 793 F.3d at 1280; Microsoft Corporation v. Proxyconn Inc., 789 F.3d at 1298. Here, the specification expressly defines atomic blocks: Defining Atomic ("A") blocks (sometimes called units) – “A” blocks are the netlist blocks that will be physically partitioned to create place and route units (PRUs). "A" blocks may contain only standard cells or they may contain additional levels of hierarchy. For the purpose of partitioning the circuit design into PRUs, the "A" blocks are indivisible. Ex. 1001, 4:8–12. Consistent with the patentee’s express definition of atomic block, we determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of atomic block to be, “a netlist block that is indivisible for the purpose of physically partitioning the circuit design into place and route units (PRUs).”” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess a “Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or a closely related field,” as well as “a minimum of one to two years of professional experience in the engineering development of integrated circuit technology.” Ex. 2004 (Declaration of Daniel Foty, Ph.D.), ¶ 15. At the oral hearing, Petitioner stated it had no dispute with Patent Owner’s proposal. Tr. 16:21–17:2. We determine that an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”) (internal quotations omitted); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “directed at efficient circuit design involving large and complex circuits, and determine that, as set forth in the VLSI textbook, FPGA is indeed a type of layout for physical design. We also credit the testimony of Dr. Ghiasi, who opines that: While Fields presents this logical approach to IC floorplanning in the context of FPGA design, one of ordinary skill as of September 2000 would have understood that the general teachings of Fields could be applied to the design of an ASIC chip as well as an FPGA chip and would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Fields to solve the problem of very large IC chip design. . . . One of ordinary skill in the field of EDA design would be familiar with IC design for both ASIC and FPGA formats and would rely on teachings in the context of FPGA chip design, especially in the front end of an EDA design flow, through floorplanning and partitioning of the physical design in addressing problems in ASIC chip design, and vice versa. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 72–73. Even assuming arguendo the Board were to accept Patent Owner’s assertion that design of an FPGA is “completely different” from design of an integrated circuit, the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) stated, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.” Thus, under KSR, such purportedly “different” teachings of Fields about FPGA design could be applicable to the physical design of an integrated circuit as described in the ’967 patent and in Su. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence, including the VLSI textbook and the Ghiasi declaration, and find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the applicability of Fields’ FPGA teachings to physical design of an integrated circuit as recited in claim 1 of the ’967 patent.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,567,967 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,567,967
• Atoptech, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2016 · IPR2014-01150 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 19–22 are unpatentable as obvious over Fields and Su; claims 32–36 are unpatentable as anticipated by Su.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Owner proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess a “Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or a closely related field,” as well as “a minimum of one to two years of professional experience in the engineering development of integrated circuit technology.” Ex. 2004 (Declaration of Daniel Foty, Ph.D.), ¶ 15. At the oral hearing, Petitioner stated it had no dispute with Patent Owner’s proposal. Tr. 16:21–17:2. We determine that an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”) (internal quotations omitted); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “in the underlying patent. In re Cuozzo, 793 F.3d at 1280; Microsoft Corporation v. Proxyconn Inc., 789 F.3d at 1298. Here, the specification expressly defines atomic blocks: Defining Atomic ("A") blocks (sometimes called units) – “A” blocks are the netlist blocks that will be physically partitioned to create place and route units (PRUs). "A" blocks may contain only standard cells or they may contain additional levels of hierarchy. For the purpose of partitioning the circuit design into PRUs, the "A" blocks are indivisible. Ex. 1001, 4:8–12. Consistent with the patentee’s express definition of atomic block, we determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of atomic block to be, “a netlist block that is indivisible for the purpose of physically partitioning the circuit design into place and route units (PRUs).”” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that the ’967 patent, Fields, and Su are all directed at efficient circuit design involving large and complex circuits, and determine that, as set forth in the VLSI textbook, FPGA is indeed a type of layout for physical design. We also credit the testimony of Dr. Ghiasi, who opines that: While Fields presents this logical approach to IC floorplanning in the context of FPGA design, one of ordinary skill as of September 2000 would have understood that the general teachings of Fields could be applied to the design of an ASIC chip as well as an FPGA chip and would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Fields to solve the problem of very large IC chip design. . . . One of ordinary skill in the field of EDA design would be familiar with IC design for both ASIC and FPGA formats and would rely on teachings in the context of FPGA chip design, especially in the front end of an EDA design flow, through floorplanning and partitioning of the physical design in addressing problems in ASIC chip design, and vice versa. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 72–73. Even assuming arguendo the Board were to accept Patent Owner’s assertion that design of an FPGA is “completely different” from design of an integrated circuit, the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) stated, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.” Thus, under KSR, such purportedly “different” teachings of Fields about FPGA design could be applicable to the physical design of an integrated circuit as described in the ’967 patent and in Su. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence, including the VLSI textbook and the Ghiasi declaration, and find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the applicability of Fields’ FPGA teachings to physical design of an integrated circuit as recited in claim 1 of the ’967 patent.” slip op. at 19

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

    “directed at efficient circuit design involving large and complex circuits, and determine that, as set forth in the VLSI textbook, FPGA is indeed a type of layout for physical design. We also credit the testimony of Dr. Ghiasi, who opines that: While Fields presents this logical approach to IC floorplanning in the context of FPGA design, one of ordinary skill as of September 2000 would have understood that the general teachings of Fields could be applied to the design of an ASIC chip as well as an FPGA chip and would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Fields to solve the problem of very large IC chip design. . . . One of ordinary skill in the field of EDA design would be familiar with IC design for both ASIC and FPGA formats and would rely on teachings in the context of FPGA chip design, especially in the front end of an EDA design flow, through floorplanning and partitioning of the physical design in addressing problems in ASIC chip design, and vice versa. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 72–73. Even assuming arguendo the Board were to accept Patent Owner’s assertion that design of an FPGA is “completely different” from design of an integrated circuit, the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) stated, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one.” Thus, under KSR, such purportedly “different” teachings of Fields about FPGA design could be applicable to the physical design of an integrated circuit as described in the ’967 patent and in Su. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s evidence, including the VLSI textbook and the Ghiasi declaration, and find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the applicability of Fields’ FPGA teachings to physical design of an integrated circuit as recited in claim 1 of the ’967 patent.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,567,967 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,567,967
• Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2015 · IPR2014-00970 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 14, 15, 19–25, and 27–34 are unpatentable; the Board found other challenged claims not shown unpatentable on the grounds decided.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The difference in the opinions of the two experts is that Dr. Sechen believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an additional four years of experience, education, or a combination of the two, beyond that proposed by Dr. Alpert. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 7. According to Dr. Alpert, the difference in the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art is not material to any dispute over claim construction or patentability in this inter partes review. Id. We accord greater weight to Dr. Alpert’s opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art because he has experience in both teaching students and working with engineers in the industry, while Dr. Sechen’s experience is primarily in teaching. Compare Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 7, 21 with Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 3, 5. Moreover, based on our review of the ’434 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’434 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Dr. Alpert’s opinion on the level of ordinary skill. Accordingly, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’434 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or in a related field and at least one year of work experience relating to memory systems, and would be familiar with the design of memory devices, memory modules, and BIST.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The above disclosure uses the term “operable independently” to describe the data handlers as being discrete and functioning without being physically or logically connected to each other. Based on our review of the ’434 patent, the specification and claim 27 both use the term “operable independently” in the same manner, i.e., to describe a feature of the data handler that is distinct from its data generation feature. We agree with Petitioner, therefore, that when interpreted in the context of the ’434 patent in its entirety, the claim term “operable independently” “merely means that each data handler can operate without influence or control by any of the other data handlers.” Reply 5. The ’434 patent specification uses the term “operable independently” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, and we find no basis for applying the narrower construction advanced by Patent Owner to any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we interpret “operable independently” as “operable without influence or control by another.” See Cuozzo, 793 F.3d at 1278–79.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Based on the above description in Averbuj, we agree with Patent Owner that Averbuj describes memory interfaces (the alleged data handlers) that are configured to produce address and control signals, and that Averbuj describes producing address and control signals in certain circumstances, e.g., when Averbuj’s sequencer (the alleged control module) specifies writing data in a particular pattern that requires transformation to conform to a particular configuration of a memory module. See PO Resp. 33. We also agree with Petitioner, however, that Averbuj’s memory interfaces are further configured to apply to the memory modules the same address and control signals received from, and produced by, the sequencers for testing (see Reply 15), e.g., when the sequencer sends signals that can be applied, without modification or transformation (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 56), directly to a memory module irrespective of its physical configuration. Thus, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Averbuj’s sequencer meets the limitation of “a control module configured to generate address and control signals for testing the memory devices” as recited in challenged independent claims 1, 20, and 29 of the ’434 patent.” slip op. at 41

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

    “As discussed in Section IV.B.2.e., a petition must include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent” (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2)), and “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response” (37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)). We agree with Patent Owner that the Reply does more than merely respond to or rebut arguments made in Patent Owner’s Response; rather, it sets forth a theory that was not presented clearly in the Petition. Patent Owner’s position is supported by the fact that Dr. Sechen, whose skill level is at least (and appears to exceed) that of the ordinary artisan, apparently was unable to envision how Huang and Averbuj could be combined. Further, Dr. Alpert’s second declaration includes, at a minimum, opinions as to the understanding of the ordinary artisan with respect to the teachings of Huang and Averbuj that were not presented in his first declaration. In our judgment, consideration by the Board of the above-noted arguments in the Reply and evidence presented in Dr. Alpert’s second declaration in support thereof would be improper under 37 CFR § 42.23 and unfair to Patent Owner. We have, however, reviewed and considered the arguments in the Petition and evidence therein, and are in agreement with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not provided adequate explanation or evidence to support its contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Huang and Averbuj. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 7–12, 17, 18, 20–25, 27, 28, and 30–35 would have been unpatentable over Huang and Averbuj.” slip op. at 59

  Patent outcomesUS 8,001,434 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,001,434
• St. Jude Medical, Inc. / St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. et al. v. Atlas IP LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2015 · IPR2014-00916 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 are unpatentable: claims 6, 14, and 21 as anticipated by Natarajan 1992 and obvious over Natarajan ’542 and Bantz; claim 11 as obvious over two combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “With respect to transmission by the remotes, the proper construction of the “each” limitation requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals during which remotes are allowed to transmit. See supra Section II.A.1. Period B is such an interval, as it contains allocated slots during which individual mobile stations are allowed to transmit packets to the Access Point. See Ex. 1011, 5–6; Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 118. The individual slots within Period B are also intervals. See Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 122. Patent Owner’s argument that Period B is not an interval meeting the requirements of the claim is unpersuasive because it is premised on an incorrect claim construction requiring at least one interval in which a remote actually transmits to the hub. See PO Resp. 5–7. As explained previously, the Federal Circuit has rejected Patent Owner’s proffered construction of the “each” limitation. See supra Section II.A.1.” slip op. at 16

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

    “the proper construction of the “each” limitation in claims of the ’734 patent. On appeal from summary judgment in the Medtronic case, the Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s so-called “plain meaning” construction, also urged by Patent Owner here. Medtronic, 2015 WL 6550622, at *10. Instead, the Federal Circuit determined that context was necessary to resolve the facial uncertainty of the claim language. Id. at *8. The court analyzed the relevant contextual evidence, including the additional claim language and references to transmission opportunities in the written description that we cited in our claim construction discussion in the Decision on Institution. Id. at *9. With analysis similar to ours, the Federal Circuit held, as we did, that the claim language, properly construed, requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals in which remotes are allowed to transmit frames. Id. Thus, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential opinion, rejected the same “plain meaning” claim construction argument made by Patent Owner in this proceeding. Also, as in this proceeding, Patent Owner provided no extrinsic evidence, so the court construed the disputed limitation based on intrinsic evidence—the claim language and the written description. Moreover, the court used the same Phillips-based claim construction approach that the Board applies when a patent has expired. Accordingly, in our patentability analysis we will apply the Federal Circuit’s construction of the “each” limitation, which, with respect to transmission by remotes, requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals during which remotes are allowed to transmit.” slip op. at 10

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

    “With respect to transmission by the remotes, the proper construction of the “each” limitation requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals during which remotes are allowed to transmit. See supra Section II.A.1. Period B is such an interval, as it contains allocated slots during which individual mobile stations are allowed to transmit packets to the Access Point. See Ex. 1011, 5–6; Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 118. The individual slots within Period B are also intervals. See Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 122. Patent Owner’s argument that Period B is not an interval meeting the requirements of the claim is unpersuasive because it is premised on an incorrect claim construction requiring at least one interval in which a remote actually transmits to the hub. See PO Resp. 5–7. As explained previously, the Federal Circuit has rejected Patent Owner’s proffered construction of the “each” limitation. See supra Section II.A.1.” slip op. at 16

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

    “the system of Natarajan 1992 instead utilized Bella’s cancellation method, which revokes a previous transmission allocation when a remote transmits no packets in a communication cycle, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the combination would result in “the hub revoking a previous transmission opportunity allocation of a remote which has not transmitted more than a predetermined number of frames” (zero) “during a previous number of communication cycles” (one). See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 167. Furthermore, if Natarajan 1992 employed the cancellation technique of Bella, the hub would be “monitoring the frames transmitted by each remote during its transmission opportunity.” See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 162, 164. Petitioner also has articulated sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that the subject matter of claim 11 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of the references. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); Pet. 35–37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 156–60. According to Petitioner, for example, the combination would simplify the cancellation method of Natarajan 1992 by allowing the hub to revoke a time slot allocation when the remote stops transmitting. Pet. 36; Ex. 1002 ¶ 158. Relying on Dr. Haas’s testimony for support, Petitioner also asserts that using Bella’s cancellation method makes even more sense when the remotes are mobile, as in Natarajan 1992, because they may move outside of the hub’s range abruptly and be unable to cancel their own reservations. Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Moreover, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s position that only ordinary skill would be required to implement the reservation and cancellation method of Bella in the Natarajan 1992 system. See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 160. For these reasons, having considered the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 11 would have been obvious over the combination of Natarajan 1992 and Bella.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 5,371,734 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 5,371,734
• St. Jude Medical, Inc. / St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. et al. v. Atlas IP LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2015 · IPR2015-00534 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 are unpatentable: claims 6, 14, and 21 as anticipated by Natarajan 1992 and obvious over Natarajan ’542 and Bantz; claim 11 as obvious over two combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “I. INTRODUCTION We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,734 are unpatentable. A. Procedural History St. Jude Medical, Inc., St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., and Pacesetter, Inc. (collectively, “St. Jude”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 14, 21, and 44 of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,734 (Ex. 1001, “the ’734 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Atlas IP LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On December 8, 2014, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 of the ’734 patent on asserted grounds of unpatentability. Paper 7 (“Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

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

    “by the parties as the “each” limitation: “repeating communication cycles, each of which has intervals during which the hub and the remotes transmit and receive frames.” E.g., Ex. 1001, 46:29–31 (claim 6). In the Decision on Institution, we construed this claim limitation “to require that each communication cycle include intervals during which the hub and remotes are allowed to transmit and receive, without requiring actual transmission of frames.” Dec. 12. We based our construction on the language of the claims, including additional language referring to “intervals . . . when the hub is allowed to transmit frames to the remotes [and] when the remotes are allowed to transmit frames to the hub.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 46:36– 39). We also considered the written description of the ’542 patent, which speaks of transmission opportunities during which remotes are provided an opportunity to transmit messages to the hub. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 12:14– 17).” slip op. at 9

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

    “With respect to transmission by the remotes, the proper construction of the “each” limitation requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals during which remotes are allowed to transmit. See supra Section II.A.1. Period B is such an interval, as it contains allocated slots during which individual mobile stations are allowed to transmit packets to the Access Point. See Ex. 1011, 5–6; Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 118. The individual slots within Period B are also intervals. See Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 122. Patent Owner’s argument that Period B is not an interval meeting the requirements of the claim is unpersuasive because it is premised on an incorrect claim construction requiring at least one interval in which a remote actually transmits to the hub. See PO Resp. 5–7. As explained previously, the Federal Circuit has rejected Patent Owner’s proffered construction of the “each” limitation. See supra Section II.A.1.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Petitioner relies on a combination of Bella’s time slot cancellation method with the system of Natarajan 1992 to satisfy the additional limitations of claim 11. Pet. 34–38; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 161–67. Like Bella, Natarajan 1992 describes a system in which mobile stations make reservation requests for slot allocation. Ex. 1011, 7–8; see Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 165. If a mobile station requests isochronous service, the requested number of slots will be allocated to the mobile station in Period B of every frame until the mobile station cancels the allocation by sending a cancellation request. Ex. 1011, 8; see Pet. 36, 38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 166. Thus, Natarajan 1992 teaches “revoking a previous transmission opportunity allocation of a remote,” as recited in claim 11, when the hub receives a cancellation request from the remote. See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 166–67. If the system of Natarajan 1992 instead utilized Bella’s cancellation method, which revokes a previous transmission allocation when a remote transmits no packets in a communication cycle, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the combination would result in “the hub revoking a previous transmission opportunity allocation of a remote which has not transmitted more than a predetermined number of frames” (zero) “during a previous number of communication cycles” (one). See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 167. Furthermore, if Natarajan 1992 employed the cancellation technique of Bella, the hub would be “monitoring the frames transmitted by each remote during its transmission opportunity.” See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 162, 164. Petitioner also has articulated sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that the subject matter of claim 11 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of the references. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); Pet. 35–37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 156–60. According to Petitioner, for example, the combination would simplify the cancellation method of Natarajan 1992 by allowing the hub to revoke a time slot allocation when the remote stops transmitting. Pet. 36; Ex. 1002 ¶ 158. Relying on Dr. Haas’s testimony for support, Petitioner also asserts that using Bella’s cancellation method makes even more sense when the remotes are mobile, as in Natarajan 1992, because they may move outside of the hub’s range abruptly and be unable to cancel their own reservations. Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Moreover, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s position that only ordinary skill would be required to implement the reservation and cancellation method of Bella in the Natarajan 1992 system. See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 160.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 5,371,734 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 5,371,734
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00825 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; the petition did not prove claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14–18 unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Applying these principles to the instant case, in an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on Petitioner to prove “unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. (explaining petitioner “had the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and this burden never shifted”). Petitioner also has the initial burden of production. Id. Petitioner satisfied its burden of production by arguing in its Petition that Spadaro was prior art under § 102(e) and, in combination with one or more other prior art references, would have rendered claims 1–20 obvious at the time the invention was made under § 103(a). Pet. 4–5, 13–36.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “Even if we were to find that Petitioner’s citation to two pages of its declarant’s testimony, without explanation, does not amount to improper incorporation by reference, the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Leonard J. Forys, Ph.D., is insufficient to show one of ordinary skill in the art was in possession of the subject matter of the claims at issue. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). First, the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Forys, is conclusory, merely quoting some portions of the ’357 patent without adequately explaining how the quoted portions relate to the subject matter recited by the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Moreover, during cross-examination Dr. Forys explained his analysis, “I just went through the ’167 patent and just picked a few things out that seem to indicate that they are already there. . . . So it was illustrative. It’s not a detailed analysis. It is just suggestive.” Ex. 2006, 48:1–7.” slip op. at 20

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

    “The ’357 patent does not set forth a special definition for “call application management system.” As confirmed by Dr. Forys (id.), the plain language of the claim specifies the function required to be performed by the call application management system—connecting calls responsive to receiving a request to connect the call. Although Dr. Forys found Patent Owner’s proposed construction to be “reasonable,” Patent Owner’s proposed construction unnecessarily introduces the term “call processing,” which is not recited by the claim itself and on its face seems broader than the recited function of a call application management system—to connect a call. We do not agree with Patent Owner that a call application management system must perform examples of call processing described by the Specification, but not recited in the claim. Limitations from embodiments are not to be imported into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Furthermore, we find that Patent Owner’s contention— the name “the call application management system of Claim 1 would be understood [by one of ordinary skill in the art] to manage, from start to finish, each call placed or received at the plurality of prisons” (PO Resp. 6)—places too much weight on the term “management” without sufficiently addressing the term “application.” We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, who disagrees that call application management system is 25 required to manage “all call processing, ‘from start to finish.’” Ex. 1020 ¶ 8 (emphasis omitted). Therefore, in light of the plain language of the claim, the Specification of the ’357 patent, and according the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant and Petitioner’s declarant appropriate weight, we construe “call application management system” to mean a system that performs the enumerated function—“connecting a call to or from the telephone terminals over a telephone carrier network responsive to receiving a request for connecting the call.”” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In general, we adopt the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. Patent Owner’s proposed academic or industry experience of telephony14 systems comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record, which relate to telephone communication systems. Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why the broader field of communications systems is a more appropriate area of academic or industry experience than telephony systems. Thus, we generally adopt Patent Owner’s proposed academic or industry experience in telephony systems. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or an equivalent field, as well as at least three years of academic or industry experience in telephony systems.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,529,357 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,529,357
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00824 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 19, and 20 are unpatentable over Spadaro and Hodge; claim 13 is unpatentable over Spadaro, Hodge, and Cree. Claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14–18 were …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “the burden of persuasion is on Petitioner to prove “unpatentability by a preponderance of evidence,” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the Patent Owner. See id. (explaining petitioner “had the burden of 11 Dynamic Drinkware issued after the time of the trial hearing and post-hearing briefing. 11 persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and this burden never shifted”). Petitioner also has the initial burden of production. Id. Petitioner satisfied its burden of production by arguing in its Petition that Spadaro was prior art under § 102(e) and, in combination with one or more other prior art references, would have rendered claims 1–20 obvious at the time the invention was made under § 103(a). Pet. 4–5, 19–35.” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “production under § 103(c)(1), Petitioner contends it carried its burden of production to show that the ’167 patent (grandparent) sufficiently would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Patent Owner had possession of the claimed subject matter and, therefore, the ’260 patent is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the ’167 patent. Reply 7. As Petitioner recognizes (Reply 6), a claim in an application is entitled, under 35 U.S.C. § 120, to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims in the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. 35 U.S.C. § 120; In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Petitioner’s argument consists of a single paragraph identifying claim numbers and locations where the ’167 patent purportedly describes the subject matter of most, but not all, of the claims at issue and a citation to a single paragraph in its declarant’s supplemental declaration supporting Petitioner’s Reply. Reply 7 (listing claims 2, 8, 9, 11, and 14–18, but not listing claims 5 and 12; citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 16).” slip op. at 21

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

    “The ’260 patent does not set forth a special definition for “call application management system.” As confirmed by Dr. Forys (id.), the plain language of the claim specifies the function required to be performed by the call application management system—connecting calls responsive to 26 receiving a request to connect the call. Although Dr. Forys found Patent Owner’s proposed construction to be “reasonable,” Patent Owner’s proposed construction unnecessarily introduces the term “call processing,” which is not recited by the claim itself and on its face seems broader than the recited function of a call application management system—to connect a call. We do not agree with Patent Owner that a call application management system must perform examples of call processing described by the Specification, but not recited in the claim. Limitations from embodiments are not to be imported into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Furthermore, we find that Patent Owner’s contention— the name “the call application management system would be understood [by one of ordinary skill in the art] to manage, from start to finish, each call placed or received at the plurality of prisons” (PO Resp. 6)—places too much weight on the term “management” without sufficiently addressing the term “application.” We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, who disagrees that call application management system is required to manage “all call processing, ‘from start to finish.’” Ex. 1020 ¶ 8. Therefore, in light of the plain language of the claim, the Specification of the ’260 patent, and according the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant and Petitioner’s declarant appropriate weight, we construe “call application management system” to mean a system that performs the enumerated function—“connecting a call to or from the telephone terminals over a telephone carrier network responsive to receiving a request for connecting the call.”” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties propose similar levels of ordinary skill in the art and do not directly challenge the other’s proposal. We consider the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). The prior art references, like the ’260 patent, relate to telephone communication systems. See Ex. 1001, 1:60–62 (indicating the technical field relates to inmate management and call processing); Ex. 1004, 1:7–9 (indicating the field of the invention relates to the processing of voice telephone calls); Ex. 1005, 1:7–9 (indicating the field of the invention relates to telephone communication systems). In general, we adopt the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. Patent Owner’s proposed academic or industry experience of telephony15 systems comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record, which relate to telephone communication systems. Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why the broader field of communications systems is a more appropriate area of academic or industry 15 MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS 2112 (6th ed. 2003) (defining telephony as “[t]he transmission of speech to a distant point by means of electric signals”) (Ex. 3001). 30 experience than telephony systems. Thus, we generally adopt Patent Owner’s proposed academic or industry experience in telephony systems. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,340,260 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,340,260
• Captioncall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2015 · IPR2013-00544 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Rehearing

  Patent Owner’s rehearing request was granted to modify the Ryan–McLaughlin combination analysis and denied otherwise; claims 7–11 remain unpatentable.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “II. DISCUSSION The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” Id.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner Response, that for a patent to serve as prior art the patent must be enabled as to its own earliest claimed effective filing date in 1994. Req. 1–4; PO Resp. 15–22. We addressed this argument in the Final Decision and additionally examined the evidence of record as to whether Ryan would have enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention without undue experimentation prior to the date of invention of the challenged patent. Final Dec. 22–25. We are not persuaded that we overlooked or misapprehended Patent Owner’s prior argument or made an erroneous interpretation of law.” slip op. at 3

  • ExcludeDecided for petitioner

    “transcript is inadmissible because it does not satisfy the requirements that all testimony, other than uncompelled direct testimony, must be in the form of a deposition transcript, 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a), and that the witness shall be sworn, 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(1). Req. 5. Therefore, according to Patent Owner, the Yamamoto transcript was “not taken, sought, or filed in accordance with these regulations [and] is not admissible.” Id. (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(a)). Rule 42.53, however, is titled “Taking Testimony,” and applies only to testimony taken “during a testimony period set by the Board” for purposes of a particular review proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(b); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c) (providing time limits set by the Board); id. § 42.53(d) (providing notice requirements). As stated in our Final Decision, Petitioner sought to admit the Yamamoto transcript as a deposition taken in the district court proceeding, not as deposition testimony taken in this inter partes proceeding. Final Dec. 32. And based on the parties’ stipulation in district court, we treated the Yamamoto transcript as sworn deposition testimony taken in the district court. Id. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶ 5). Petitioner filed the Yamamoto transcript as supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b), establishing that the Yamamoto transcript reasonably could not have been obtained earlier and that its consideration was in the interests of justice. Paper 59, 7–8. Therefore, Petitioner’s filing of the Yamamoto transcript complied with Board rules, and we properly relied on it in determining the public accessibility of Yamamoto. See Final Dec. 35–38. Having reviewed Patent Owner’s Request, we are not persuaded we misapprehended or overlooked any matter relating to the admissibility of the Yamamoto transcript.” slip op. at 6

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

    “disclosure in the ’578 patent of “voice pattern.” Id. at 7–9. We disagree that our reliance on the “Brief Summary of the Invention,” which refers to “a speech recognition computer program which has been trained to the voice pattern of the call assistant,” was improper. See Final Dec. 12 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:44–46 (emphasis added)). Rather, in our Final Decision, we determined that the ’578 patent contemplated software trained to a “voice pattern of the call assistant,” as set forth in the “Brief Summary of the Invention,” as well as software “specifically trained to the voice of [a] particular call assistant,” as described in the context of a particular relay embodiment shown in Figure 1. Final Dec. 12 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:44–46; Ex. 1002, 5:44–47). Based on the evidence in the written description (including the disclosure of “voice pattern”), we determined that the ’578 patent did not indicate expressly how training occurs. Id. Giving the claim language its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification, we concluded we would not limit “trained to the voice of the call assistant” to require training to the voice of one particular call assistant. Id.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,213,578

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.