• Black Swamp IP, LLC v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2017 · IPR2016-00693 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 27, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 51, 57, and 60 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kiuchi under § 102.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “configured to “comprise an indication that the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link.” Patent Owner argues that “it is improper to equate establishing a secure communication link with indicating whether the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link” because claim 1 “separately recit[es] ‘establishing a secure communication link,’ . . . and ‘an indication that the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link.’” PO Resp. 22, 30 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶ 34, 46). Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently how a system that establishes a secure link somehow does not “indicate” that it supports doing so if the system establishes the secure link. One of skill in the art would have understood a system that establishes a secure link would support doing so at least as a matter of common sense. If the system did not support establishing a secure link, one of skill in the art would have expected such a system not to actually establish a secure link (the system not supporting such an action). This is contrary to Kiuchi’s system, for example, in which a secure link is established (thereby “indicating” that it supports doing so). For example, the “domain name service system” is recited in claim 1 as “establishing a secure communication link,” and comprising “an indication that the . . . system” may support the recited function of “establishing a secure communication link.” We do not observe, nor does Patent Owner point out in a meaningful way, any conflicts between a recited system comprising an “indication” that the system supports a recited function by performing the function that it supports and a recitation that the system is designed to perform that function.” slip op. at 6

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “(“New Issue #1” and “New Issue #2”) in Petitioner’s Reply Brief. PO Identification 1–5. After careful consideration of Patent Owner’s arguments and for reasons set forth below, we determine that Patent Owner’s arguments regarding alleged New Issue #1 are moot because we do not rely upon Petitioner’s arguments regarding that issue in this opinion. We also determine that alleged New Issue #2 was responsive to arguments raised by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 7,418,504 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,418,504
• Black Swamp IP, LLC v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2017 · IPR2016-00957 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 23, 27, 36, 37, 39, 40, 47, 51, and 60 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kiuchi under § 102.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Given that Patent Owner raises this issue (that the claim terms “indicating” and “establishing” are separate and distinct) for the first time in Patent Owner’s Response, even assuming that Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner argues in the Reply Brief “that ‘the ‘indicate’/’indicating’ claim elements and the alleged ‘establishing’ claim elements are not separate claim elements’” (PO Identification 4 (citing Pet. Reply 14, 17)), such an argument by Petitioner would merely be responsive to Patent Owner’s arguments presented in Patent Owner’s Response and, therefore, would not “go beyond properly responding to VirnetX’s Patent Owner Response,” as Patent Owner alleges. PO Identification 1.” slip op. at 17

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

    “communication link.” Patent Owner argues that “it is improper to equate establishing a secure communication link with indicating whether the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link” because claim 1 “separately recit[es] ‘establishing a secure communication link,’ . . . and ‘an indication that the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link.’” PO Resp. 22, 30 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 34, 46). Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently how a system that establishes a secure link somehow does not “indicate” that it supports doing so if the system establishes the secure link. One of skill in the art would have understood a system that establishes a secure link would support doing so at least as a matter of common sense. If the system did not support establishing a secure link, one of skill in the art would have expected such a system not to actually establish a secure link (the system not supporting such an action). This is contrary to Kiuchi’s system, for example, in which a secure link is established (thereby “indicating” that it supports doing so).” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “communication link.” Patent Owner argues that “it is improper to equate establishing a secure communication link with indicating whether the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link” because claim 1 “separately recit[es] ‘establishing a secure communication link,’ . . . and ‘an indication that the domain name service system supports establishing a secure communication link.’” PO Resp. 22, 30 (citing Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 34, 46). Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently how a system that establishes a secure link somehow does not “indicate” that it supports doing so if the system establishes the secure link. One of skill in the art would have understood a system that establishes a secure link would support doing so at least as a matter of common sense. If the system did not support establishing a secure link, one of skill in the art would have expected such a system not to actually establish a secure link (the system not supporting such an action). This is contrary to Kiuchi’s system, for example, in which a secure link is established (thereby “indicating” that it supports doing so).” slip op. at 6

  Patent outcomesUS 7,921,211 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,921,211
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com, LLC et al. v. Zitovault, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2017 · IPR2016-01025 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 1, 3, 5–8, and 10 unpatentable because the cited references did not adequately account for the claims’ session limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are persuaded that our preliminary interpretation of “session” in our Decision on Institution is, at least in some respect, overly broad. Independent claims 1, 6, 7, and 10 each refer to “sessions” in plural, and independent claim 7 refers to “simultaneous” sessions. Thus, the term “session” must be understood, at least, in such a manner as to allow multiple sessions to be distinguished from one another. Although independent claim 5 does not recite “sessions” in plural, the same term should be construed consistently across all claims. Accordingly, we conclude that there must be sufficient delineation within a proper construction of “session” that separates a “session” between one client and one server and a different “session” when one of the client and server are replaced, and that separates multiple sessions from each other even between the same pair of client and server. During Oral Hearing there were extensive discussions regarding proper construction of “session.” See Tr. 7:9–22:18, 43:11–65:15, 74:21–76:13. At Oral Hearing, counsel for Petitioner agreed that “session” should be understood as communications having a recognizable beginning and a recognizable end. Id. at 10:13–16 (“Of course a session has a beginning and an end. I think that is axiomatic in a session. I think that is how Dr. Rubin defined it in his declaration”); see also id. at 12:21–13:5, Ex. 1005 ¶ 41. Patent Owner also agreed that if the construction of session is made to include a recognizable beginning and a recognizable end, that would be a proper construction for the term:” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to identify what constitutes a “session” in Feinberg in accordance with a proper construction of “session.” That proper construction of “session” is set forth above and has been agreed to by the parties. Tr. 10:13–16, 53:13–54:10. We state it again here: “a set of transmitters and receivers, and the data streams that flow between them wherein each data stream flowing between the transmitters and receivers has a recognizable beginning of the data stream transmission and a recognizable end of the data stream transmission.” Petitioner identifies Feinberg’s disclosure of forwarding (shunting) received requests from the primary server to secondary servers (for purposes of load balancing) teaches the recited “communication between the main server and agent server enlists additional agent servers to support incremental secure sessions in response to maintaining performance at a desired level.” Pet. 21–23 (emphasis added). The analysis is excessively generic for the claim recitation of “incremental secure sessions.” It is uncertain what Petitioner regards as a session in Feinberg much less how it begins and how it ends. It is unexplained by Petitioner whether a request in Feinberg begins a session, or something else in Feinberg begins a session. We decline to speculate in that regard. It is Petitioner who bears the burden of proof, and who must account for all the limitations in a claim. In that regard, we note further that it is insufficient for Petitioner to present only dots that may be connected in some unspecified manner to yield the claimed invention. Instead, Petitioner must make a sufficient connection through the dots to demonstrate a full accounting of the claimed invention.” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “that the system supports “incremental secure sessions.” The Petition relies on Feinberg for disclosing such sessions, presenting the same arguments as those it presents for claim 6. See Pet. 33–34. Patent Owner argues Feinberg fails to disclose sessions for the same reasons as those that Patent Owner presented with respect to claim 6. See PO Resp. 36–37. Petitioner’s Reply asserts essentially the same arguments for claim 1 as it does for claim 6 regarding “incremental secure sessions.” Pet. Reply 17. Petitioner does not rely on Bhaskaran to alleviate the above-identified deficiency in the analysis of Feinberg with respect to claim 6. The standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is what would have been taught or suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan with based on the references. The key to supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious and, the Court has noted that, the analysis supporting an obviousness assertion should be made explicit. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). A “legal determinations of obviousness, as with such determinations generally, should be based on evidence rather than on mere speculation or conjecture.” Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As discussed supra, Petitioner failed to account adequately for the recited “sessions.” Therefore, Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claims 1, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Feinberg and Bhaskaran and, for the same reasons, has failed to establish claim 3, dependent from claim 1, would have been obvious over Feinberg and Bhaskaran.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Initially, we note Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude fails to identify the portions of Dr. Rubin’s Declaration that allegedly fail to be based upon sufficient facts or data, that allegedly are the product of unreliable principles and methods, or that allegedly fail to reliably apply sound principles and methods to the facts of the case. There is no requirement for an exact or perfect match between the expert’s experience and the field of the patent. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, Patent Owner fails to meet its burden with respect to this Motion to Exclude. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Furthermore, regarding the objections under FRE 702, we note that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” Consequently, this objection more properly goes to the weight to be given Dr. Rubin’s testimony, and not to its admissibility. In any event, Patent Owner’s argument, that Petitioner did not explain the evidentiary weight or standard that was applied by Dr. Rubin, is misplaced. We note that Dr. Rubin is an expert witness, not a fact finder or a tribunal making fact findings. Dr. Rubin need only provide his opinion and, preferably, also provide the underlying reasoning, inclusive of data and facts, in support of his opinion. For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,484,257 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,484,257
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com, LLC et al. v. Zitovault, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2017 · IPR2016-00021 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 1, 3, 5–8, and 10 unpatentable: the asserted grounds did not adequately identify sessions with recognizable beginnings and ends.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are persuaded that our preliminary interpretation of “session” in our Decision on Institution is, at least in some respect, overly broad. Independent claims 1, 6, 7, and 10 each refer to “sessions” in plural, and independent claim 7 refers to “simultaneous” sessions. Thus, the term “session” must be understood, at least, in such a manner as to allow multiple sessions to be distinguished from one another. Although independent claim 5 does not recite “sessions” in plural, the same term should be construed consistently across all claims. Accordingly, we conclude that there must be sufficient delineation within a proper construction of “session” that separates a “session” between one client and one server and a different “session” when one of the client and server are replaced, and that separates multiple sessions from each other even between the same pair of client and server. During Oral Hearing there were extensive discussions regarding proper construction of “session.” See Tr. 7:9–22:18, 43:11–65:15, 74:21–76:13. At Oral Hearing, counsel for Petitioner agreed that “session” should be understood as communications having a recognizable beginning and a recognizable end. Id. at 10:13–16 (“Of course a session has a beginning and an end. I think that is axiomatic in a session. I think that is how Dr. Rubin defined it in his declaration”); see also id. at 12:21–13:5, Ex. 1005 ¶ 41. Patent Owner also agreed that if the construction of session is made to include a recognizable beginning and a recognizable end, that would be a proper construction for the term:” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to identify what constitutes a “session” in Feinberg in accordance with a proper construction of “session.” That proper construction of “session” is set forth above and has been agreed to by the parties. Tr. 10:13–16, 53:13–54:10. We state it again here: “a set of transmitters and receivers, and the data streams that flow between them wherein each data stream flowing between the transmitters and receivers has a recognizable beginning of the data stream transmission and a recognizable end of the data stream transmission.” Petitioner identifies Feinberg’s disclosure of forwarding (shunting) received requests from the primary server to secondary servers (for purposes of load balancing) teaches the recited “communication between the main server and agent server enlists additional agent servers to support incremental secure sessions in response to maintaining performance at a desired level.” Pet. 21–23 (emphasis added). The analysis is excessively generic for the claim recitation of “incremental secure sessions.” It is uncertain what Petitioner regards as a session in Feinberg much less how it begins and how it ends. It is unexplained by Petitioner whether a request in Feinberg begins a session, or something else in Feinberg begins a session. We decline to speculate in that regard. It is Petitioner who bears the burden of proof, and who must account for all the limitations in a claim. In that regard, we note further that it is insufficient for Petitioner to present only dots that may be connected in some unspecified manner to yield the claimed invention. Instead, Petitioner must make a sufficient connection through the dots to demonstrate a full accounting of the claimed invention. Petitioner had ample notice of the possibility of a narrower interpretation of “session.” See PO Resp. 7–11, 23–24. Indeed, Petitioner responded to that possibility by referring to its own expert’s testimony that the beginning and end of a session may be signified in a variety of forms. Pet. Reply 2. See Genzyme Therapeutic Prod. Ltd. P’ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The critical question for compliance with the APA and due process is whether [the parties] received ‘adequate notice of the issues that would be considered, and ultimately resolved, at [the] hearing’”) (internal citation omitted). Nevertheless, Petitioner’s Reply still does not specifically identify a “session” within Feinberg that accounts for what constitutes a session in Feinberg, including when it begins and ends. Claim 10 recites, in pertinent part, “sharing spare CPU cycles of the computer network for encrypting and decrypting communication to provide N simultaneous secure session[s] among said network of computers.” Petitioner’s analysis with respect to the recitation of “N simultaneous secure session[s]” is deficient for the same reasons we discussed above with respect to the recitation of “incremental secure sessions” in claim 6. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 6 and 10 are anticipated by Feinberg.” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “that the system supports “incremental secure sessions.” The Petition relies on Feinberg for disclosing such sessions, presenting the same arguments as those it presents for claim 6. See Pet. 33–34. Patent Owner argues Feinberg fails to disclose sessions for the same reasons as those that Patent Owner presented with respect to claim 6. See PO Resp. 36–37. Petitioner’s Reply asserts essentially the same arguments for claim 1 as it does for claim 6 regarding “incremental secure sessions.” Pet. Reply 17. Petitioner does not rely on Bhaskaran to alleviate the above-identified deficiency in the analysis of Feinberg with respect to claim 6. The standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is what would have been taught or suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan with based on the references. The key to supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious and, the Court has noted that, the analysis supporting an obviousness assertion should be made explicit. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). A “legal determinations of obviousness, as with such determinations generally, should be based on evidence rather than on mere speculation or conjecture.” Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As discussed supra, Petitioner failed to account adequately for the recited “sessions.” Therefore, Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claims 1, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Feinberg and Bhaskaran and, for the same reasons, has failed to establish claim 3, dependent from claim 1, would have been obvious over Feinberg and Bhaskaran.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Initially, we note Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude fails to identify the portions of Dr. Rubin’s Declaration that allegedly fail to be based upon sufficient facts or data, that allegedly are the product of unreliable principles and methods, or that allegedly fail to reliably apply sound principles and methods to the facts of the case. There is no requirement for an exact or perfect match between the expert’s experience and the field of the patent. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, Patent Owner fails to meet its burden with respect to this Motion to Exclude. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Furthermore, regarding the objections under FRE 702, we note that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a), “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” Consequently, this objection more properly goes to the weight to be given Dr. Rubin’s testimony, and not to its admissibility. In any event, Patent Owner’s argument, that Petitioner did not explain the evidentiary weight or standard that was applied by Dr. Rubin, is misplaced. We note that Dr. Rubin is an expert witness, not a fact finder or a tribunal making fact findings. Dr. Rubin need only provide his opinion and, preferably, also provide the underlying reasoning, inclusive of data and facts, in support of his opinion. For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,484,257 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,484,257
• Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Novadaq Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2017 · IPR2015-01847 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: all are obvious over Yabe; claims 10, 12, and 14 are also anticipated by Krauter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “1. Level of Ordinary Skill Mr. Gunday testified, In my opinion, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the alleged invention is a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or other similar degree, and two ([2]) to three (3) years of work experience relating to medical endoscopic imaging. Such a person would have had an understanding of, or experience in, designing, implementing, and using endoscopic imaging systems, including light sources and endoscopic video and image processing. Ex. 1011 ¶ 76. Mr. Jaggi agrees with Mr. Gunday’s opinion in this regard, adding only that degrees in “Electrical engineering or Engineering Physics” would each qualify as Mr. Gunday’s “other similar degree.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–54. We agree with and adopt the view of the parties regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Initially, we note bodily incorporation of the features of the embodiments is not the test of obviousness; rather, the test lies in what is taught or suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan by the proposed combination of embodiments of Yabe. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. Yabe discloses multiple embodiments and expressly discloses interchangeability of rotary (“surface-sequential-type”) filters as disclosed in Yabe’s second embodiment (Figure 2) and mosaic (“built-in”) filters as disclosed in Yabe’s first and third embodiments (Figures 1a and 10). Ex. 1007, 18:17–21. Yabe’s express disclosures outweigh the unsupported assertions of Patent Owner’s expert regarding the complexity of constructing the proposed combination of embodiments. “Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Therefore, we are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the embodiments of Yabe, as proposed by Petitioner, “because it would serve the same purpose as the existing rotary filter/CCD arrangement and lead to predictable results.” See Pet. 20; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.” slip op. at 28

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

    “We are disinclined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of this phrase, as recited in claim 1, to require mathematical manipulation. Claim 1 recites “calculates” in a self-defining manner, specifically reciting calculating the image signals “by minimizing the contribution from signals produced by the image sensor in response to red illumination light.” Thus, claim 1 is clear on its face that the calculation to be performed is by minimizing the contribution from red light. Therefore, our analysis shifts to determining the meaning of “minimizing” as recited in claim 1. The ’151 patent discloses a variety of embodiments for “minimizing” the contribution of red light.5 For example, in support of the Patent Owner’s 5 Additionally we observe that “minimizing” appears only once in the ’151 patent—in claim 1 (and, thereby, also in its dependent claims 2–9). construction, the ’151 patent does disclose exemplary embodiments that minimize red light contribution utilizing mathematical manipulations including, for example, CMYG filter computations that are “considered to be well known to those of ordinary skill in the art” (Ex. 1001, 4:66–7:59) and averaging blue and green signals to “compute” a cyan signal (id. at 4:21–24). The ’151 patent, however, also specifically recites, Because the passbands of the red mosaic filters do not significantly overlap with the pass bands of the other filters for a short wavelength imaging mode, the contribution of the image signals due to red illumination light can be reduced or largely eliminated by not assigning the image signals produced by image sensor pixels that are sensitive to red light to their corresponding display pixels. Id. at 4:5–12 (emphasis added). The ’151 patent further states “a short wave-length image (or the color components of such an image) can be computed from a subset of image sensor signals (i.e. excluding the signal data from red light).” Id. at 8:29–32 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’151 patent also encompasses the contribution of red light in the image being” slip op. at 12

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

    “Although the ’151 patent does not address “analog” or “digital” in reference to “memory,” we agree with Patent Owner, based primarily on the cross-examination testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Gunday, that the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the ’151 patent filing would have understood “memory,” in the context of the ’151 patent, to be referring to digital memory rather than analog buffers. The signals stored in Krauter’s analog buffers are transitory, analog signals propagating from circuits that calculate a value, through the analog buffer, to an analog input of a display monitor. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have considered such analog buffers to be a memory in the context of the ’151 patent. Thus, we determine “memory,” as recited in claim 1, means any digital memory capable of storing image signals that minimize the contribution of red light.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,420,151 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,420,151
• Microsoft Corporation v. Corel Software, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2017 · IPR2016-01300 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–3 because the Petition did not show that QuarkXPress or IRIS was a prior art printed publication.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner

    “date of a reference disregards Petitioner’s burden to show that the reference was publicly accessible by a particular date. Indeed, a copyright notice may be evidence of the date of a reference. See, e.g., FLIR Systems, Inc., slip op. at 18–19 (stating that “[o]n the record before us, we are persuaded that the Copyright notice prima facie establishes a prior art date of 2002”). The copyright notice, alone, however, sheds virtually no light on whether the document was publicly accessible as of that date, therefore additional 6 We note that Petitioner sought authorization to file a reply brief to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to further address whether either QuarkXPress or IRIS is prior art. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (providing that a petitioner may be authorized to file a reply to the preliminary response upon a showing of good cause). During a teleconference between counsel for the parties and the Board on October 27, 2016, Petitioner explained that it not only sought to file an additional brief, but also to submit additional evidence in the form of declarations. Petitioner’s request was denied for lack of “good cause.” That Petitioner may have determined from Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response that the information Petitioner provided with the Petition failed to provide a threshold showing that either QuarkXPress or IRIS is a prior art printed publication did not support a finding of “good cause” in this case, much less justify submitting additional evidence not included with the Petition, which Patent Owner was deprived of addressing in its Preliminary Response. As noted above, an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition” shows a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitioner did not identify any persuasive basis to provide additional declaration evidence outside of the Petition prior to institution of inter partes review to show a fundamental element of Petitioner’s contentions -- that the references asserted by Petitioner are prior art as printed publications. evidence is typically necessary to support a showing of public accessibility. See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Cruise Control Techs. LLC, Case IPR2014- 00291, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB June 29, 2015) (Paper 44) (discussing evidence of public accessibility that supported a finding that a reference was a prior art printed publication). Rather than evidence public accessibility, the copyright notice appears in QuarkXPress along with an express limitation on the use and dissemination of QuarkXPress, stating “[t]his manual may not, in whole or in part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced, translated, or converted to any electronic or machine readable form without prior written consent of Quark, Inc.” Ex. 1007, 4. Thus, the evidence suggests that if it was distributed at all, it was only in a restricted and limited fashion to persons who acquired the underlying QuarkXPress software product. Accordingly, we look to whether Petitioner has provided other evidence or argument to support its contention that QuarkXPress was publicly accessible.” slip op. at 10

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

    “III. CONCLUSION The only grounds of unpatentability asserted by Petitioner against the ’309 patent in the Petition rely upon QuarkXPress or IRIS, and, as discussed above, Petitioner has not presented sufficient persuasive information in the Petition and accompanying evidence to make a threshold showing that either QuarkXPress or IRIS is a prior art printed publication. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the information presented in the Petition and accompanying evidence does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’309 patent. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 15

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,731,309
• The Boeing Company v. Seymour LevineAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2016 · IPR2015-01341 · APJ Trenton A Ward · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the combinations listed in the decision.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The definition of “advice” is “information or notice given.” Ex. 3001 (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 32 (1971), 3.). Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of “maintenance advice” is consistent with the aforementioned evidence, in that “maintenance advice” can include maintenance information, but does not require “recommended maintenance actions.” Patent Owner argues that this dictionary definition cited by the Board includes an alternative definition of “advice” as a “recommendation regarding a decision or course of conduct.” PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 3001, 3). Patent Owner further argues that this alternative definition of “advice” is most consistent with specification. PO Resp. 33. Patent Owner fails, however, to cite to any portions of the specification to support this argument (see id.) and fails to explain why we should not be guided by the more general statements in the specification, such as the description in the specification that a “preferred maintenance advisory” can be based “on an expert system for fault isolation,” which is in no way “recommended maintenance actions.” Ex. 1001, 3:36–37. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “maintenance advice” must include recommended maintenance actions. Accordingly, we adopt the portion of the proposed definitions on which the parties agree and determine that the term “maintenance advice” means “problem-specific maintenance information.” See also Dec. 7–8.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “skill in the art relevant to the ’618 patent would have a “B.S. degree in electrical, systems, or computer engineering, or an FAA Mechanic Certificate with an airframe rating in accordance with 14 CFR part 65.71 and 65.85.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 15. According to Patent Owner’s Declarant, Mr. Grabowsky, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’618 patent would have “at least a B.S. degree in electrical, systems, or computer engineering, or an FAA Mechanic Certificate with an airframe rating in accordance with 14 CFR part 65.71 and 65.85; as well as either an M.S. or equivalent work experience, such as 3-5 years of experience in avionics.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 8. Thus, both declarants generally agree on the level of skill, although Mr. Grabowsky suggests experience is required in addition to the B.S. degree or the FAA Mechanic Certificate. See id. Based on our review of the ’618 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’618 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant and Patent Owner’s Declarant, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We are not persuaded that the additional experience of an M.S. or equivalent work experience, such as 3-5 years of experience in avionics, is required, as suggested by Mr. Grabowsky, as we are unclear as to why the claimed subject matter is beyond the abilities of someone who otherwise meets applicable federal regulatory standards. Based on the stated qualifications of Dr. Helfrick (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 5–9) and the stated qualifications of Mr. Grabowsky (Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 6–7), Petitioner’s Declarant and Patent Owner’s Declarant both meet the requirements of this definition. We note that the applied prior art also reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12

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

    “and ARINC 624-1 because ARINC 624-1 is a standard directed to the very types of on-board systems discussed in Ward.”)). Additionally, Petitioner contends that ARINC publishes standards for the aviation industry, developed by committees that include aircraft manufacturers, avionics manufacturers, and airlines, and that the ACARS transmitter disclosed in Ward is based on, and, thus, would follow, an ARINC standard. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 23, 75). Also, Petitioner contends that both Ward and ARINC 624-1 discuss utilizing (1) onboard maintenance systems including ACMS to collect aircraft performance data and (2) an ACARS transmitter to transmit such data to a ground station. Pet. 30. Petitioner adds that ARINC 624-1 provides an explicit motivation to utilize Ward’s ground based maintenance analysis software in implementing its maintenance system, because ARINC 624-1 states that “if known in advance of an airplane’s arrival at a terminal, selected information held in the OMS central maintenance computer’s memory could be useful to line maintenance personnel in planning timely corrective action.” Pet. 30–31 (quoting Ex. 1014 § 2.2.4). We agree, for the reasons stated by Petitioner, that, given the similarity and overlap in disclosures, and applicability of the ARINC standard to the ACARS transmitter of Ward, a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the system in Ward with the teachings in ARINC 624-1. In view of the foregoing, we determine Petitioner has presented and sufficiently established an “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” with respect to claim 4 for this ground, and we adopt its contentions as our own. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 21

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner

    “on an aircraft having a flight data recorder.” Pet. Reply 15.10 Furthermore, Petitioner identifies that claims 8–10 all require “aircraft position data directed to said flight data recorder.” Id. Petitioner argues that Mr. Levine’s October 9, 1996 Invention Disclosure is insufficient, because it does not reflect the conception of the invention that Patent Owner ultimately claimed, which requires two data recorders—one onboard the aircraft and a second, remote recorder on the ground. Id. We do not agree with Petitioner’s argument that claims 4 and 8–10 require a flight data recorder on the ground, as claim 4 merely recites a “central station” “configured to receive and analyze said digital aircraft performance.” We do agree, however, with Petitioner’s argument that the express language of independent claim 4 requires “an aircraft having a flight data recorder.” Furthermore, claim 4 requires that the “digital aircraft performance data,” which the “central station” is configured to receive and analyze, is “data directed to the flight data recorder.” Thus, the invention recited in independent claim 4, and its dependent claims, must include a flight data recorder onboard the aircraft and, separately, a central station configured to receive and analyze data directed to the onboard flight data recorder. 10 The recitation “[a]n aircraft maintenance system for use on an aircraft having a flight data recorder” appears in the preamble of claim 4. “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, the body of claim 4 refers to “the flight data recorder” as an active limitation in the claim. Therefore, we determine that the preamble is limiting for claim 4.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS RE39,618 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. / Apple Inc. et al. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01047 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6–8, and 12–14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kiuchi; the Board also addressed obviousness grounds but did not need to rely on the additional references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claim 1 recites a DNS request. The DNS request is “sent by a client,” potentially “corresponds to a secure server,” and may result in any one of a return of an IP address of a nonsecure computer or the initiation of an encrypted channel between the client and the secure server. Claim 1 does not appear to recite any other specific features of the DNS request.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We are cautioned by the Federal Circuit that, with respect to secondary considerations alleged by Patent Owner in response to a prima facie showing of obviousness, “the obviousness inquiry centers on whether ‘the claimed invention as a whole’ would have been obvious.” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., Appeal Nos. 2015-1038, 2015-1044, slip op. at 15 (Fed. Cir., July 19, 2016). Looking at the “claimed invention as a whole,” we note that claim 1, for example, recites a data processing device that determines whether an intercepted DNS request corresponds to a secure server, forwards the DNS request to a DNS function that returns an IP address of a nonsecure computer (when the intercepted DNS request does not correspond to a secure server), and automatically initiating an encrypted channel between the client and the secure server when the intercepted DNS request corresponds to a secure server. As previously discussed in the record, Kiuchi discloses these features, either taken separately or as a “whole.” Patent Owner does not indicate a portion of the “whole” of the claimed invention that Kiuchi supposedly does not disclose. Not having identified sufficiently a part of the “whole” of the claimed invention that Kiuchi does not disclose, we conclude that Kiuchi discloses the “whole” of the claimed invention. Therefore, Patent Owner fails to show a nexus to its evidence of secondary considerations. While Patent Owner argues that DARPA-sponsored entities were supposedly unable to provide “the ease of use of the solutions provided in the claimed inventions of the ’151 patent,” Patent Owner does not demonstrate persuasively and with credible evidence that Kiuchi, for example, was also unable to provide “the ease of use of the solutions provided in the claimed inventions of the ’151 patent.” As previously discussed, Kiuchi appears to have succeeded in providing such solutions.” slip op. at 18

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

    “preponderance of the evidence that RFC 1034 or [Rescorla] qualifies as a ‘printed publication.’” PO Resp. 40. The determination of whether a given reference qualifies as a prior art “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). On its face, RFC 1034 is a dated “Request for Comments” from the “Network Working Group,” discussing generally known methods for responding to a query from a client. Ex. 1005, 4. On its face, Rescorla is a dated “Internet-Draft” from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and described as a “draft document[] valid for . . . six months.” Ex. 1004, 1. Moreover, RFC 1034 explicitly states that “[d]istribution of this memo is unlimited.” Ex. 1005, 1. These indicia suggest that it is more likely than not that both documents were made available to the public (over the Internet). To bolster its showing, Petitioner provides evidence suggesting that RFC 1034 and Rescorla would have been accessible to the interested public. For example, Petitioner provides testimony of Dr. Roch Guerin who explains that “Request for Comment” documents or “RFCs’ or ‘Internet- Drafts’ are “publications [that] are prepared and distributed” and “can be obtained from a number of Internet hosts using . . . document-retrieval systems.” Ex. 1003, 46. Dr. Guerin also testifies that such documents are “published and widely distributed” for “a period for others to provide comments on the document” and that the “publication date of each RFC is contained in the RFC, . . . in the top right corner of the first page of the document [which is] the date it was released for public distribution on the Internet.” Ex. 1003, 44. Ex. 1003 47–48.” slip op. at 24

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner Black Swamp was improperly joined to the 01047 proceeding” because “[e]xpert testimony was required in this case given the complexity of the technology at issue” and Black Swamp supposedly failed to file this allegedly “required” expert testimony. This argument was previously raised by Patent Owner and previously addressed. IPR2016-00167 Prelim. Resp. 7–10; IPR2016-00167 Dec. Inst. 4–5; Paper 38, 3–4; Paper 42, 2–3. We remain unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s re-iterated arguments for at least the reasons previously provided. In response to the question of whether Petitioner is required to rely on expert testimony for purposes of institution, Patent Owner now states that “the Federal Circuit” has held that “Petitioner has both the ‘initial burden of production’ and ‘the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” PO Resp. 40. Patent Owner, however, does not explain the relevance of this statement, even if assumed to be true, to whether or not a Petitioner is required to rely on expert testimony for purposes of institution. We remain unpersuaded by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,490,151 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,490,151
• Alstom Grid LLC v. Dominion Resources, Inc. And Virginia Electric And Power CompanyInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00504 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 were unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review of claims 1‒3, 5‒10, 12, 13, and 15‒20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,437,883 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’883 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Dominion Resources, Inc. and Virginia Electric and Power Company (collectively, “Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and associated evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing unpatentability of all the challenged claims. We, therefore, deny the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Patent Owner argues that Deaver fails to disclose “a signal reporting what was sensed by a sensor that is not included in the subset.” Prelim. Resp. 14‒15. We agree with Patent Owner. As argued by Patent Owner, Petitioner contends that Deaver discloses “alerts” that are transmitted when the minimum and maximum voltage thresholds are exceeded. Prelim. Resp. 14‒15; see Pet. 23. However, the CPVMs transmitting the alerts are monitors at each customer premises that are “selected by an electric utility company as a desired point within the power distribution system [] that will be voltage monitored.” Ex. 1004, 4:1‒3. As such, the CPVMs are all in the subset of sensors being monitored, and none of CPVMs are “not included in the subset.” Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Deaver fails to disclose “at least one other sensor of the plurality of sensors that is not included in the subset is further configured to send a respective reporting signal.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner fails to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner generally states that Deaver, LaPlace, Richeson, and Bell are analogous to the ’883 patent because they are in the same field of endeavor, dealing with power distribution systems and power management in power distribution systems, and metering technology. Pet. 16. Petitioner goes on to characterize each of the references in this field of endeavor. Id. at 16‒17. Although a determination that the cited prior art is analogous to the ’883 patent provides insight into the scope and content of the prior art to be examined, such a determination is, by itself, insufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness. Petitioner must set forth an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning in supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness, and must provide a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements disclosed by each of the references. Here, Petitioner has failed to provide such a reasoning.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We determine that there is no need to construe expressly any of the claim terms at this time. Although Petitioner and Patent Owner disagree as to the construction of the term “energy delivery parameter,” we need not construe this term because it is not necessary to resolve the dispositive issues discussed below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need to be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,437,883
• Alstom Grid LLC v. Dominion Resources, Inc. And Virginia Electric And Power CompanyInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2016 · IPR2016-00503 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5, 7–13, 15, 16, and 18–34 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner fails to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 16

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

    “We determine that there is no need to construe expressly any of the claim terms at this time. Although Petitioner and Patent Owner disagree as to the construction of the term “energy delivery parameter,” we need not construe this term because it is not necessary to resolve the dispositive issues discussed below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“only those terms need to be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Patent Owner argues that Deaver fails to disclose “a signal reporting what was sensed by a sensor that is not included in the subset.” Prelim. Resp. 14‒16. We agree with Patent Owner. As argued by Patent Owner, Petitioner contends that Deaver discloses “alerts” that are transmitted when the minimum and maximum voltage thresholds are exceeded. Prelim. Resp. 14‒16; see Pet. 22. However, the CPVMs transmitting the alerts are monitors at each customer premises that are “selected by an electric utility company as a desired point within the power distribution system [] that will be voltage monitored.” Ex. 1004, 4:1‒3. As such, the CPVMs are all in the subset of sensors being monitored, and none of the CPVMS are “not included in the subset.” Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Deaver fails to disclose “at least one other sensor of the plurality of sensors that is not included in the subset is further configured to send a respective reporting signal.” Patent Owner further argues that Deaver fails to disclose “add[ing] to the subset the at least one other sensor that sent the respective reporting signal,” as recited by independent claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 8‒14. We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner contends that Deaver discloses voltage adjustment instructions based on the reported measurement data, and “because any number of customer premises may be selected for voltage monitoring, the reporting meter could be added to the monitored subset.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:45‒60, 5:47‒62, 6:46‒51; Ex. 1001, 38‒42). However, as argued by Patent Owner, Deaver is silent as to adding to the subset of CPVMs being monitored. See Prelim. Resp. 9. At best, Petitioner’s argument that any number of customer premises may be selected, and meters could be added to the subset is an argument towards the obviousness of this limitation, not anticipation, as challenged by Petitioner. See Pet. 23. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that Deaver fails to disclose “wherein the voltage controller is further configured to add to the subset the at least one other sensor in response to receiving the reporting,” as recited by independent claim 1.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner fails to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner generally states that Deaver, LaPlace, Richeson, and Bell are analogous to the ’510 patent because they are in the same field of endeavor, dealing with power distribution systems and power management in power distribution systems, and metering technology. Pet. 14. Petitioner goes on to characterize each of the references in this field of endeavor. Id. at 14‒15. Although a determination that the cited prior art is analogous to the ’510 patent provides insight into the scope and content of the prior art to be examined, such a determination is, by itself, insufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness. Petitioner must set forth an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning in supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness, and must provide a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements disclosed by each of the references. Here, Petitioner has failed to provide such a reasoning. We further agree with Patent Owner that testimony from Dr. Kezunovic’s Declaration should not be incorporated in to the Petition. See Prelim. Resp. 31‒33. The Petition itself does not address a rationale to combine Deaver, LaPlace, Richeson, Bell, Keefe, and ANSI C84.1-2006, and further does not direct us to discussion in Dr. Kezunovic’s Declaration for a rationale to combine. At best, Dr. Kezunovic asserts that “DMS, smart meters, and substations are well-known prior art elements, whereby their combination yields predictable results.” Ex. 1001, 95; see Ex. 1001, 176, 238, 250. However, Dr. Kezunovic does not provide any explanation as to why the combination of “DMS, smart meters, and substations” would yield predictable results. Accordingly, even if we were to incorporate Dr. Kezunovic’s Declaration in to the Petition, which we do not, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has set forth articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning in supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness. As such, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood in prevailing in its obviousness challenges.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,577,510

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.