• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2023-01026 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–36 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 7, 10–17, 19–23, 25–27, and 30–36 are anticipated by Alden; claims 5, 6, 8, and 9, and 28–29, are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “III. CONCLUSION For the reasons given, Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1–36 of U.S. Patent 10,894,503 B2 are unpatentable.12 The results are summarized below:” slip op. at 47

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (PO Resp. 4), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “While Alden’s Figure 5 shows a sectional view of a segmented-headlight embodiment, thus depicting a single line of LEDs, that does not restrict the embodiment to a one-dimensional array. Indeed, Alden’s disclosures discussed above contradict such a view, as do the disclosures regarding Figure 5 and other segmented-headlight embodiments. We credit Petitioner’s expert’s testimony in this regard. Ex. 2041, 59:10–12 (“[I]t’s very clear we’re talking about a two-dimensional structure that is map of this set of slices in figure 5.”); accord id. at 56:25–60:18. The Figure 5 embodiment includes a switch array to control the individual lighting elements, with “[e]ach lighting element being independently controlled by a corresponding switch in an array of switches 115.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 29. The Figure 6 embodiment includes a face-on view of the headlight plainly showing a two-dimensional array, in addition to a sectional view similar to that of Figure 5. Id. at Fig. 6. And Alden describes that the Figure 6 embodiment uses a “switch array similar to 115 and the process previously described herein.” Id. ¶ 30. Considering Alden’s description of its sensing-and-control circuit in connection with Figure 3, which illustrates a two-dimensional array, and its description of Figure 5’s segmented headlight as working with that approach, we find that Alden’s LED-based segmented headlight is capable of selective illumination in two dimensions. See id. ¶¶ 27, 29, Figs. 3, 5.” slip op. at 17

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

    “The Petition asserts that all claim terms should be given their “ordinary and customary meaning.” See Pet. 8. Patent Owner also proposes that the claim terms be given their ordinary meaning, and identifies the “ordinary meaning” for the terms “identify,” “turn,” and “curve,” which we discuss in our analysis below. We otherwise find that that no express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01040 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 48–87 are unpatentable: Alden anticipates most challenged claims, while claims 49 and 51 are obvious over Alden and Beam, and claims 52, 60, 68, 76, and 84 over Alden and Kobayashi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute that level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art and refer to people with it as skilled artisans.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “enablement for Alden’s system detecting road curves. Pet. Reply 21. As Petitioner points out, Alden uses both intensity and a detected object’s location (including distance) to inform its response. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 27–28. Petitioner’s expert testifies that the same physical system used to accommodate oncoming vehicles could be used to detect roadside reflectors and direct light into road curves. Ex. 2041, 78:16–80:24. Further, Petitioner’s expert testifies that skilled artisans would adjust the intensity and distance thresholds to distinguish roadside reflectors from oncoming vehicles. IPR2023-01039, Ex. 1003 ¶ 150. Based on Alden’s disclosures, we credit Petitioner’s expert’s testimony that Alden’s system would detect and accommodate road curvatures as claimed by the ’551 patent. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132–134. Although Patent Owner argues that Alden’s system could not do so while also accommodating oncoming vehicles, that position is based on the argument that “the system can’t tell the difference between signs and headlights.” PO Surreply 21–23. Patent Owner contends that “detected intensity is a function of both distance and emission intensity” so a threshold couldn’t distinguish headlights from signs. Id. at 24–25. That position ignores that Alden uses triangulation to calculate each object’s distance, as discussed, which would allow it to distinguish different types of objects using an intensity threshold. We agree with Petitioner’s expert that Alden’s system can distinguish the two, as discussed.” slip op. at 33

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

    “sufficiently clear to impart a requirement on “classifying” such that a system must choose from multiple classes or types of objects. The parties do not appear to dispute that “classifying the object” includes arranging or grouping the object according to some system or principle. Thus, there is no need to further construe the claims for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Alden’s system does not simply dim its headlights where it detects spots of light. Rather, it performs a multistep process in which those spots are detected, analyzed with triangulation to determine distance, and then used to determine dimming zones. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 27–28. Alden discloses that its sensor “detects the two headlights” of an oncoming vehicle when “[e]lectrons corresponding to the position and intensity of light are categorized by a logic and CPU 71 and stored in a memory 72.” Id. ¶ 27. Petitioner’s expert noted that Alden’s description “move[s] from lights – thresholding lights to objects, and then calculate[s] distance of each thresholding object using triangulation.” Ex. 2041, 109:23–110:2. That testimony supports our view that Alden first detects lights, uses those detected lights to identify and classify an oncoming car, then dims the headlight output to prevent glare. Alden’s dimming decision particularly indicates that it classifies pairs of detected headlights as oncoming vehicles. The CPU makes “assumptions about the space that may potentially be occupied by the driver of the sensed vehicle” and identifies an area of the segmented headlight to dim that is “significantly larger than the headlight dots that were initially received.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 27. Patent Owner agrees that Alden dims “selected surrounding sectors” around detected light (PO Resp. 30), and the way Alden selects those sectors indicates that it identifies vehicles. It does not simply expand an area around each detected light; it dims an area to encompass the driver of the identified vehicle. Ex. 1005 ¶ 27, Fig. 3. By treating a pair of corresponding detected lights collectively for dimming, Alden indicates that it classifies pairs of detected lights as vehicles.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01039 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8, 10–18, and 24–47 are unpatentable: Alden anticipates claims 24–27, 29–35, 37–43, and 45–47; the remaining claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), effective March 16, 2013, amended the applicable statutes. Because the application from which the ’551 patent issued was filed before this date, the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply. 4 US 2003/0137849 A1, filed Jan. 22, 2002 (Ex. 1005). 5 US 6,049,749, issued Apr. 11, 2000 (Ex. 1006). 6 US 2002/0057572 A1, published May 16, 2002 (Ex. 1007). 7 WO 2001/70538 A2, published Sept. 27, 2001 (Ex. 1008). similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute that level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art and refer to people with it as skilled artisans.” slip op. at 7

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

    “The problem with Patent Owner’s claim-construction position is that neither the dictionary definition nor the ’551 patent’s specification establish any degree of proof, verification, or confirmation that an object has been correctly identified. The specification discloses that “techniques known in the art” may be used “to classify, identify or locate the contents” visible to a camera sensor. Ex. 1001, 44:67–45:9. That does not establish any certainty obtained by the preexisting techniques. The specification states that the system can “illuminate distant overhead and roadside signs” and can use “[i]mage recognition via a camera” so that the illumination beam may “follow the retroreflective sign as the vehicle moves.” Id. at 51:59–67. That disclosure does not speak to any degree of confirmation or certainty. The specification’s other disclosures are no different. Id. at 52:19–27 (disclosing automated control over lighting and referencing “automatic dimming of high beam due to detection of oncoming vehicles”), 52:66–53:4 (“Using color and pattern recognition techniques it is possible to determine what is a sign.”), 63:9–12 (“Using real time image processing methodologies with image and scene recognition technology known in the art, room or outdoor area elements, objects and people are identified.”), 64:46–49 (“Using machine vision technology known in the art such as neural networks training and other pattern recognition techniques the vision system has sensor, algorithmic and computation means for identifying devices or objects.”), 69:54–57 (“In a preferred embodiment of the invention the logical controller 454 receiving image input from the camera 453 and running pattern recognition software will identify what is the visual task a person is trying to perform.”), 75:48–62 (“Using programmed scene recognition algorithms, the luminaire’s computer vision system comprised of the camera sensor 496 and logical controller 494 identifies the food on the plate, looks-up in storage the recommended CCT and powers each of the different colored LED chips aimed thereon at the correct power level in order to provide the optimal color illumination.”), 76:33–39 (“[A] camera vision system has algorithmic means to identify and track the position of people and objects and the logical controller has motion control means for re-aiming the light sources towards targeted elements and changing the power level to the LED chips.”). None of those disclosures addresses a requirement for confirming or verifying an identification that the system makes; nor does any address a particular accuracy requirement in identifying an object. Based on the specification using “identify” without any requirement that identifying an object requires confirmation or verification of the object’s true identify, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Although the construction itself similarly does not expressly require the confirmation or verification that Patent Owner seeks to impose, we understand that to be Patent Owner’s intent, and accordingly do not adopt the proposed construction. The parties dispute no other aspect of “identify,” and we therefore need not expressly construe the term.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Because Alden describes its segmented headlights as implementing a process using two-dimensional signals for two-dimensional dimming functionality, we find that Figure 5 depicts a section of an embodiment that contains more than a single row of lighting elements. Stated otherwise, Alden’s disclosures are consistent with each other and are directed to a two-dimensional approach to sensing, control, and illumination. Further, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has not addressed the legal standard for lack of enablement. Pet. Reply 2. In particular, to overcome the presumption that prior-art disclosures are enabled, Patent Owner must show ordinarily skilled artisans would require undue experimentation to practice the disclosed invention. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F. 3d 1313, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F. 3d 1282, 1287– 88 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We do not agree with Patent Owner that Alden lacks a presumption of enablement (see PO Surreply 7–8), because we determine that Petitioner’s contentions rely on Alden’s disclosures regarding its invention as a whole. Other than arguing that Figure 5 discloses a single-row embodiment that is unusable with Alden’s other disclosures, Patent Owner has made no attempt to show Alden lacks enablement. Patent Owner has not addressed what experimentation skilled artisans would require to practice an invention using Alden’s Figure 5 segmented headlight with the remainder of Alden’s system as disclosed in Figures 2, 3, and 4, and Alden’s corresponding textual description. We therefore determine that Patent Owner has not shown Alden to lack enablement for its disclosed invention.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have had reason to incorporate Kobayashi’s teachings that its controller receives “road map information” from a “road profile calculating means” and uses it to adjust the headlamp’s illumination. Pet. 63–64. Petitioner reasons that it would be obvious to “apply these teachings to Alden to use map data to identify road curvature when adapting the LEDs of Alden to ‘direct light into the corner.’” Id. at 64 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 122). And Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans had reason to do so because it would “maximize successful detection in different environments” such as where the road lack reflectors. Id. at 65 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 123). Other than as discussed above regarding Alden’s disclosures, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s showing for claims 28, 36, and 44. We have considered the full record, including evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner on whether the combination of Alden and Kobayashi discloses each limitation of claims 28, 36, and 44, and whether skilled artisans would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings as asserted. Based on the full record, we conclude that Petitioner has proven that claims 28, 36, and 44 would have been obvious over Alden and Kobayashi. Pet. 62–65.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• Cisco Systems, Inc. / Fortinet, Inc. v. Infoexpress Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00676 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–10, 14, 16, 22–23, 25, and 27 on the asserted obviousness ground based on Krantz and Herrmann.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “combination of Krantz and Herrmann (see Pet 19–99) and find that, on the record as it now stands, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one claim. As described above,” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of relevant experience in networking and network security, and related fields.” Pet. 4. Petitioner also asserts that “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id.” slip op. at 10

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

    “combination of Krantz and Herrmann (see Pet 19–99) and find that, on the record as it now stands, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one claim. As described above,” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached

    “qualifies as prior art to the ’450 patent “because the InfoExpress inventors conceived of the invention [of the ’450 patent] before the effective dates [of Krantz and Herrmann] and exercised reasonably continuous diligence in reducing the claimed inventions to practice.” Prelim. Resp. 33–45. Petitioner disagrees that the present record sufficiently shows that the inventors of the ’450 patent conceived of the invention before the effective date of Krantz or Herrmann and that the inventors exercised reasonably continuous diligence in reducing that invention to practice. See Prelim. Reply 1–7. In particular, Petitioner raises questions with respect to the independence of Patent Owner’s evidence from the inventor testimony that evidence is intended to corroborate, as well as with respect to whether the evidence offered by Patent Owner sufficiently shows conception, reduction to practice, and reasonably continuous diligence. Id. We do not think the information of record is sufficient to antedate Krantz and Herrmann such that we should deny institution of inter partes review on that basis. First, Patent Owner’s arguments rely on the testimony of inventor Stacey C. Lum, who has not yet been subject to cross-examination. See Prelim. Resp. 35–45 (citing Ex. 2003). Second, Petitioner identifies several issues where further development of the record may be helpful. For example, Patent Owner’s asserted date of conception is associated with the date of an engineering specification included in the record as Exhibit 2011. See Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 12; Ex. 2011; Ex. 2012). We agree with Petitioner (see Prelim. Reply 4–5) that it is unclear, based on the present record, whether Exhibit 2011 corroborates the testimony supporting Patent Owner’s conception date given that the present record does not establish the author of Exhibit 2011. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 22 (inventor Stacey C. Lum testifying only that “InfoExpress personnel drafted EX2011”). These and other issues relating to the prior-art status of Krantz and Herrmann are, in our view, best left for trial after full development of the record.3” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,677,450
• Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01353 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, supported by Dr. Staniford’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and four years of industry experience,” and “would have had a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23, 25). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther

    “We largely agree with Patent Owner that there is no explicit claim- construction dispute. We address Patent Owner’s issues of what ordinarily skilled artisans would have considered in creating and implementing packetfiltering rules in the discussion below. The preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption is one aspect that those with a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks would have considered. Nonetheless, overall, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “configured to prevent an exfiltration operation,” does not require preventing all exfiltrations from occurring, nor allowing all non-exfiltration traffic, and that we need not consider the preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption in the context of that claim construction. We determine that no claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,567,343
• Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00446 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21

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

    “how and why persons of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the existing rules to prevent exfiltrations. PO Sur-reply 3. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s assertions to make them “drop” rules, per Sourcefire, relies on what an administrator could have done, not what they would have been motivated to do. Id. at 4–5 (citing Pet. 57–58). We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art, combining Sourcefire and Emerging Threats, would have understood that downloaded rules should be reviewed, and it would have been obvious to enable rules that such persons deemed appropriate. We find Dr. Staniford’s testimony to be persuasive on this point. See Ex. 2011, 67:10–68:24, 69:8–72; Ex. 1020, 109. We acknowledge that downloading all of a particualr ruleset from Emerging Threats and enabling all the rules, might have resulted in a drop in performance of the network appliance, but, at the same time, we are significant drop in performance, especially if a potential threat might be sufficient to warrant a minor performance hit. Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledged at oral hearing that instituting all rules of a set in “alert” mode would not result in a decrease in performance, even though some computational outlay must be engaged to engage those alert rules. See Hr’g Tr. 24:24–25:4. We are persuaded that judiciously implementing certain rules would not necessary result in a network device that is unusable. Additionally, there is testimony from Dr. Staniford that “you start out with your rules in alert because there might be false positives. I mean, for the best rule in the world, Snort wasn’t known for false positives in the rules, when you apply them to a large network.” Ex. 2011, 68:2–7. As such, we continue to determine that it would have been obvious, in combining Sourcefire with Emerging Threats, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have downloaded rules and implemented specific rules.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Reviewing all of the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the Petition’s obviousness rationale based on Sourcefire and Emerging Threats is not guided by impermissible hindsight bias. We find persuasive Dr. Staniford’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “this rule [SID:2003021] was not directed to looking for instances of exploits or attacks (which would be invisible within the encryption) but rather was looking for exfiltration of some kind of encrypted data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. As discussed by Petitioner, such recognition was also made by Mr. Marinho and Dr. Goodrich, such that the rule would have been understood to possibly prevent exfiltrations. We continue to be persuaded that Petitioner provides that a correspondence exists between the REQUIRE-TLS-1.1-1.2 operator in the ’343 Patent and SID:2003021 in Emerging Threats, in that both detect an SSL/TLS version in application packet header field values to detect exfiltration attempts using out-of-date encryption protocols. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 229–230). We are ’343 Patent discloses the interruption of a similar type of exfiltration, without resorting to impermissible hindsight bias, that Patent Owner asserts. Patent Owner has provided no evidence that Petitioner used the specification of the ’343 Patent to find an applicable rule in Emerging Threats, as opposed to the testified-version provided by Dr. Staniford that he recalls “working on a similar feature where we looked for large encrypted transmissions outbound from the network on non-HTTP ports as a possible symptom of exfiltration of large amounts of data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,567,343
• Zebra Technologies Corporation v. Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2022-01377 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10–12, and 14–22 are unpatentable: claims 1–8, 12, and 14–22 as anticipated by Garber; claims 10 and 11 as obvious over Garber and Andersen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “3. The Alleged Anticipation of Claim 1 a. A portable interrogator, comprising: Petitioner contends that the preamble is not limiting, but, to the extent that it is, Garber discloses a portable interrogator. Pet. 12–13 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1005, 14:59–62, 15:63–65). Petitioner asserts that Garber discloses a portable interrogator in the form of a hand-held RFID device, and points to, inter alia, Garber’s description of Figure 4 as depicting “a block diagram of an RFID interrogation system interacting with an RFID tag.” Id. at 12 (quoting Ex. 1005, 3:46–47) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not raise any arguments regarding this contention. b. an antenna configured to receive a first signal from a first object; Petitioner contends that Garber discloses a hand-held RFID device having an antenna for the RFID reader. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1005, 15:43– 46, 16:11–13, Fig. 13; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75–78). Petitioner further contends that Garber’s Figure 13 depicts the antenna receiving an RFID signal from a tag attached to a library book. Id. at 13. Petitioner additionally contends that Garber discloses the identification, by the RFID device, of multiple items via code signals 202, thus disclosing an antenna configured to receive a first signal from a first object. Id. at 14. Petitioner notes that Garber states, “[t]he hand-held RFID device . . . is capable of identifying multiple items that are within the range of the device.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 14:40–45) (emphasis and alterations in original). Petitioner further asserts that “Garber also teaches that ‘if items used in the library are first placed on a book cart [in close proximity without obstructions], for example, the hand-held device could make a single pass by the items on the cart to record them.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 18:25–27) (emphasis and alterations in original). Patent Owner does not raise any arguments regarding these contentions. c. a control and processing subsystem configured to discern a presence of said first object from said first signal; and Petitioner contends that: Garber discloses a control and processing subsystem (e.g., the processor in the hand-held RFID device/computer 108) configured to discern a presence of (e.g., decoding response from tags to identify tagged item) said first object (e.g., the RFID tags) from said first signal (e.g., signals produced by tags/response code signal 202). Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–84); see also id. at 14–17. Patent Owner does not raise any arguments regarding this contention.” slip op. at 38

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

    “4. Motivation to Combine Garber and Andersen Relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen for several reasons. Pet. 49, 52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 187–196). First, Petitioner argues that Garber and Andersen are analogous art to the ’293 patent “because they are in the same field of endeavor—namely, interrogation systems.” Id. at 49. Specifically, Petitioner argues that Garber and Andersen are analogous to the ’293 patent “because they are reasonably pertinent to the technical problem allegedly addressed by the claimed invention.” Id. Petitioner contends that “[t]he ’293 Patent identifies deficiencies in the prior art as including [inter alia] a requirement ‘that each device be interrogated separately’ (versus ‘[t]he ability to interrogate a plurality of closely spaced tags simultaneously’).” Id. at 49–50 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:16–25, 5:56–6:15, 6:40–46) (third alteration in original). According to Petitioner, Garber discloses, among other things, that “‘[a]nother benefit’ of the RFID device as ‘the ability to process multiple items at one time’ where ‘conventional devices having only optical bar code scanners can process only a single item . . . at one time.’” Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 1005, 13:25–30, 13:30–36 (“greatly reduc[ing] the time required for library staff to process multiple items.”)) (alterations in original). Petitioner argues that “Andersen is also analogous because it teaches ‘a system for tracking inventory having RFID components” and is designed to remedy the deficiencies of prior art inventory tracking systems using bar codes, which can be torn, destroyed, or hidden from view. Id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:8–10, 1:58–2:2, 2:4–5). Additionally, according to Petitioner, Andersen is intended to address multipath errors and teaches that one way to refine radio signals received by RFID tags is by using a Kalman filter. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36). Petitioner also argus that Andersen “provides ample motivation to add a Kalman filter to Garber’s hand-held device” to provide “correction of multi scanned signal / multipath errors.” Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36, 12:39–41). “As such,” Petitioner asserts, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious “to modify Garber’s handheld device, which is used inside a library where shelves and other obstacles can result in multipath errors, to use Andersen’s Kalman filter to address these errors.” Id. Additionally, according to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill “could have combined Andersen’s Kalman Filter with Garber’s hand-held device using known methods, and such a filter would merely perform the same function—resolving errors to improve detection accuracy, which is entirely predictable.” Id. at 51–52. Finally, Petitioner contends, one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because “[t]he interrogator components described in Garber and Andersen were well-known at the time,” and the modification of Garber’s interrogator to include Andersen’s Kalman filter would have been straightforward for a person of ordinary skill. Id. at 52. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s motivation to combine Garber and Andersen is insufficient. PO Resp. 29–32; PO Sur-reply 23. First, Patent Owner argues that the combination is based on impermissible hindsight because Petitioner did not explain why one of ordinary skill would have combined Garber and Andersen “to teach a control and processing unit employing an adaptive integrated filter or multiscan, coherent signal processing.” PO Resp. 31. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen because “Andersen teaches the use of filters to correct multipath signal errors arising from the transmission of a single signal,” while the ’293 patent “teaches the use of filters to process multiple diverse inputs with a signal representing an RFID object to discern the presence of that object and teaches multiscan, coherent signal processing to coordinate the processing of a plurality of signals.” Id. “In either case,” Patent Owner contends, “the problems solved by the ’293 Patent involve multiple signals and not the single signal problem addressed by Andersen.” Id.” slip op. at 68

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “5. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness Patent Owner asserts that there is evidence of long felt but unresolved need that constitutes objective indicia of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 32–33; see PO Sur-reply 24 (“others in the field had attempted and failed to solve the problems addressed by the ‘293 Patent”). Patent Owner also makes certain assertions regarding the adoption and possible acquisition of its technology. PO Resp. 34; see also PO Sur-reply 24 (referring to “industry acceptance of Lone Star’s inventions”). Petitioner characterizes these latter assertions as allegations of industry praise and commercial success. Pet. Reply 24. In support of its objective indicia arguments, Patent Owner relies solely on the declaration of named-inventor John Volpi (Ex. 2018). See PO Resp. 32. Petitioner argues that there is no nexus to the claimed invention because Patent Owner “has not identified the merits of the claimed invention or any product that embodies the claimed features or is coextensive with them.” Pet. Reply 23–24. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner “has not established industry praise or commercial success, let alone a nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” Id. at 24. As the Federal Circuit has explained: For objective evidence of secondary considerations to be relevant, there must be a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the objective evidence. See In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). A showing of nexus can be made in two ways: (1) via a presumption of nexus, or (2) via a showing that the evidence is a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention. A patent owner is entitled to a presumption of nexus when it shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product that “embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000). . . . However, even absent a presumption of nexus, “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373–74 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).” slip op. at 72

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

    “exhibits for use at oral argument. Paper 31 (Petitioner’s objections); Paper 33 (Patent Owner’s objections). Petitioner contends that certain of Patent Owner’s demonstrative exhibit slides contain new argument not previously made in any paper and evidence not previously asserted or relied on in any paper. See Paper 31. Patent Owner similarly contends that certain of Petitioner’s demonstrative exhibit slides contain new argument and evidence not previously referenced or relied on. See Paper 33. The parties’ demonstrative exhibits are not evidence and we do not rely on them herein. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 84 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf (explaining that demonstratives exhibits are merely “aids to oral argument and not evidence” and therefore “the Board has not found that such objections are helpful in many cases”). Accordingly, we do not sustain the parties’ objections.” slip op. at 79

  Patent outcomesUS 10,482,293 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,482,293
• Zebra Technologies Corporation v. Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2022-01376 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–20 are unpatentable: the Board found the asserted Garber-based anticipation and obviousness grounds established, while not reaching three alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Examiner’s prior art references, in order to read an RFID tag, required each tag to be isolated from others, either by distance or through the use of a strategically placed RF shield. The applicant distinguished the claimed subject matter over those relatively unsophisticated RFID readers (that could only read one tag at a time) by amending the claims to recite, by the inclusion of “close proximity” and “unshielded,” a more sophisticated interrogator that did not need to use spacing or shielding. This is consistent with the background section of the ’717 patent stating that RFID systems at the time of the patent were better than relatively unsophisticated bar code systems. See Ex. 1001, 4:6–22; see also PO Resp. 17–18 (Patent Owner quoting the same after re-stating the Board’s preliminary construction and conceding that “[t]he Board conclusion here is supported by the plain language of the ‘717 Patent.”). Specifically, the ’717 patent explains that “[a]n important attribute of RFID interrogation systems is that a number of tags can be interrogated simultaneously stemming from the signal processing,” and that “[a] related and desirable attribute is that there is not typically a minimum separation required between the tags.” Ex. 1001, 4:6– 12. “Most other identification systems, such as systems employing bar codes, usually impose that each device be interrogated separately.” Id. at 4:17–19.” slip op. at 23

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

    “means-plus-function limitation governed by 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 6 and, accordingly, is limited to corresponding structure (and equivalents) disclosed” slip op. at 26

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

    “3. The Alleged Anticipation and Obviousness of Claim 1” slip op. at 39

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

    “4. Motivation to Combine Garber and Andersen Relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, Petitioner argues that one of” slip op. at 84

  Patent outcomesUS 9,996,717 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,996,717
• Zebra Technologies Corp. v. Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2022-01375 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–4, 6–7, 10–19, 21, and 22 unpatentable, finding the asserted Garber grounds proven and not reaching the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “4. Motivation to Combine Garber and Andersen Relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen for several reasons. Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 244–254). First, Petitioner argues that “Garber and Andersen are analogous art to the ’182 patent because they are in the same field of endeavor—namely, interrogation systems.” Id. Specifically, Petitioner relies on its arguments in Ground 2 that “Garber is analogous to the ’182 patent because it is reasonably pertinent to the technical problem allegedly addressed by the claimed invention.” Id. at 60–61; see id. at 52–53. Petitioner argues that “Andersen is also analogous because it teaches ‘a system for tracking inventory having RFID components” and is designed to remedy the deficiencies of prior art inventory tracking systems using bar codes, which can be torn, destroyed, or hidden from view. Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:8–10, 1:58–2:2, 2:4–5). Additionally, according to Petitioner, Andersen is intended to address multipath errors and teaches that one way to refine radio signals received by RFID tags is by using a Kalman filter. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36). Petitioner also argus that Andersen “provides ample motivation to add a Kalman filter to Garber’s hand-held device” to provide “correction of multi scanned signal / multipath errors.” Pet. 61–62 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36, 12:39–41). “As such,” Petitioner asserts, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious “to modify Garber’s handheld device, which is used inside a library where shelves and other obstacles can result in multipath errors, to use Andersen’s Kalman filter to address these errors.” Id. at 62. Additionally, according to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill “could have combined Andersen’s Kalman filter with Garber’s hand- held device using known methods, and such a filter would merely perform the same function—resolving errors to improve detection accuracy, which is entirely predictable.” Id. Finally, Petitioner contends, one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because “[t]he interrogator components described in Garber and Andersen were well-known at the time,” and the modification of Garber’s interrogator to include Andersen’s Kalman filter would have been straightforward for a person of ordinary skill. Id. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s motivation to combine Garber and Andersen is insufficient. PO Resp. 46–49; PO Sur-reply 27. First, Patent Owner argues that the combination is based on impermissible hindsight because Petitioner did not explain why one of ordinary skill would have combined Garber and Andersen “to teach a control and processing unit employing an adaptive integrated filter or multiscan, coherent signal processing.” PO Resp. 48. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen because “Andersen teaches the use of filters to correct multipath signal errors arising from the transmission of a single signal,” while the ’182 patent “teaches the use of filters to process multiple diverse inputs with a signal representing an RFID object to discern the presence of that object and teaches multiscan, coherent signal processing to coordinate the processing of a plurality of signals.” Id. “In either case,” Patent Owner contends, “the problems solved by the ’182 [p]atent involve multiple signals, not the single signal problem addressed by Andersen.” Id. Petitioner responds that the references themselves provide explicit” slip op. at 83

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

    “3. Analysis of Independent Claim 1 a) 1[pre]: “[an] interrogator, comprising:” Petitioner argues that, to the extent the preamble is limiting, Garber discloses it. Pet. 16. Petitioner points to Garber’s disclosure that “[a] handheld RFID device can interrogate and identify RFID-tagged items,” and that the hand-held RFID device “preferably includes an RFID reader and writer.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 14:49–62, 15:63–65) (emphasis omitted). “Furthermore,” Petitioner contends, “Figure 4 of Garber discloses ‘a block diagram of an RFID interrogation system interacting with an RFID tag,’” and RFID tags “respond to requests for information by the interrogator.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 3:46–47, 5:44–45). Patent Owner does not present arguments specifically directed to the preamble of claim 1. See PO Resp. Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner’s cited evidence sufficiently supports its contentions regarding the preamble.8” slip op. at 38

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

    “4. Motivation to Combine Garber and Andersen Relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen for several reasons. Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 244–254). First, Petitioner argues that “Garber and Andersen are analogous art to the ’182 patent because they are in the same field of endeavor—namely, interrogation systems.” Id. Specifically, Petitioner relies on its arguments in Ground 2 that “Garber is analogous to the ’182 patent because it is reasonably pertinent to the technical problem allegedly addressed by the claimed invention.” Id. at 60–61; see id. at 52–53. Petitioner argues that “Andersen is also analogous because it teaches ‘a system for tracking inventory having RFID components” and is designed to remedy the deficiencies of prior art inventory tracking systems using bar codes, which can be torn, destroyed, or hidden from view. Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:8–10, 1:58–2:2, 2:4–5). Additionally, according to Petitioner, Andersen is intended to address multipath errors and teaches that one way to refine radio signals received by RFID tags is by using a Kalman filter. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36). Petitioner also argus that Andersen “provides ample motivation to add a Kalman filter to Garber’s hand-held device” to provide “correction of multi scanned signal / multipath errors.” Pet. 61–62 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36, 12:39–41). “As such,” Petitioner asserts, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious “to modify Garber’s handheld device, which is used inside a library where shelves and other obstacles can result in multipath errors, to use Andersen’s Kalman filter to address these errors.” Id. at 62. Additionally, according to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill “could have combined Andersen’s Kalman filter with Garber’s hand- held device using known methods, and such a filter would merely perform the same function—resolving errors to improve detection accuracy, which is entirely predictable.” Id. Finally, Petitioner contends, one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because “[t]he interrogator components described in Garber and Andersen were well-known at the time,” and the modification of Garber’s interrogator to include Andersen’s Kalman filter would have been straightforward for a person of ordinary skill. Id. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s motivation to combine Garber and Andersen is insufficient. PO Resp. 46–49; PO Sur-reply 27. First, Patent Owner argues that the combination is based on impermissible hindsight because Petitioner did not explain why one of ordinary skill would have combined Garber and Andersen “to teach a control and processing unit employing an adaptive integrated filter or multiscan, coherent signal processing.” PO Resp. 48. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen because “Andersen teaches the use of filters to correct multipath signal errors arising from the transmission of a single signal,” while the ’182 patent “teaches the use of filters to process multiple diverse inputs with a signal representing an RFID object to discern the presence of that object and teaches multiscan, coherent signal processing to coordinate the processing of a plurality of signals.” Id. “In either case,” Patent Owner contends, “the problems solved by the ’182 [p]atent involve multiple signals, not the single signal problem addressed by Andersen.” Id. Petitioner responds that the references themselves provide explicit” slip op. at 83

  • ExcludeDenied

    “rely on them herein. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 84 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf (explaining that demonstratives exhibits are merely “aids to oral argument and not evidence” and therefore “the Board has not found that such objections are helpful in many cases”). Accordingly, we do not sustain the parties’ objections.” slip op. at 88

  Patent outcomesUS 9,646,182 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,646,182
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2024 · IPR2023-01027 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable over the cited prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We may institute an inter partes review if “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) (2018). For the reasons provided below, and based on the record as it now stands, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review. B.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenMixed

    “Regarding the claimed “predefined threshold value” or “predefined illuminance,” Petitioner asserts that “Alden’s system can ‘provide illumination to independently controlled segments [e.g., ‘subsections’] each operable within a range of intensities between the high and the low beam state” and that Alden’s “intensities in between high beam and low beam (e.g., medium) are the claimed ‘predefined threshold value’ which the low beam would be below and the high beam would be above.” Pet. 25. We tend to disagree with this analysis, as it does not appear that a “range of intensities” is a “predefined threshold value” or “predefined illuminance,” if those terms are given their ordinary meaning. We thus conclude that, on this record at least, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that Alden anticipates these claims. Regarding obviousness in view of Alden alone, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has “failed to establish or demonstrate multiple elements that are required to support an obviousness conclusion, including explaining how Alden must be modified (i.e., identifying the differences between the claimed invention and Alden) and explaining why a POSA would be motivated to so modify Alden (i.e., providing some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion).” Prelim. Resp. 37. We agree. It does not appear that Petitioner has provided any basis on which to account for differences between Alden and the challenged claims based on Alden’s disclosures alone.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (Prelim. Resp. 7), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner does not seek construction of any claim terms and asserts that “all claim terms [discussed in the Petition] are given [their] ordinary and customary meaning.” Petition 8. Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary” at this time because its “arguments for denial do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” Prelim. Resp. 7. There being no present dispute about the meaning of any claim term, we find that no express claim construction is necessary to resolve the issues addressed in this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503

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.