• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2015 · IPR2015-01050 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the means-plus-function claims lacked sufficient structural disclosure and Feldmeier did not establish claim 63’s forwarding-permission limitation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’853 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for patent owner

    “The corresponding structure need not be explicitly identified but must disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art what structure is identified in the specification. See Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It is unclear from the Specification whether the CPU, shown in Figure 2 as part of access control element 120, is the “higher-level processor” (Ex. 1001, 5:21–25), or some other processor running IOS (Ex. 1001, 1:33–37). It is also unclear which part of the access control element 120 is composed of “circuits adapted to particular process steps and data structures” (id. at 3:36–39). Here, the patent is at best unclear whether the claimed function is implemented in software executed on a general purpose CPU or in hardware as a collection of circuits. See Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“That ordinarily skilled artisans could carry out the recited function in a variety of ways is precisely why claims written in ‘means-plus-function’ form must disclose the particular structure that is used to perform the recited function.”). We also find that it is equally unclear whether the following means- plus-function limitations in claim 46, which appear to involve access control element 120, are implemented in hardware or in software structure (or some combination of both): “means for matching matchable information, said matchable information being responsive to said packet label, with said set of access control patterns in parallel”; “means for making a routing decision in response to said access result”; and “means for receiving a packet label responsible to a packet, said packet label being sufficient to perform access control processing for said packet.” Because the Specification of the challenged patent lacks sufficient disclosure of structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the scope of independent claim 46, and claims 47–52, 54, 56, and 59–62 that depend therefrom cannot be determined without speculation and, consequently, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art cannot be ascertained. Thus, we decline to institute an inter partes review as to any ground challenging claims 46–52, 54, 56, and 59–62.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner argues, “Feldmeier’s packet forwarding is not the same as determining forwarding permissions (e.g., whether a packet is restricted from being transmitted from a selected source device to a selected destination device.)” Prelim. Resp. 31–32. Patent Owner further argues Feldmeier does not process a packet based on a forwarding permission. Id. We agree. Petitioner purports to show that “matching one or more characteristics of said packet with one or more access control specifiers,” recited in claim 63, results in “permission” to forward a packet. Petitioner states that “the information obtained from the CAM lookup governs the decision of whether to route or discard the packet.” Pet. 40 citing (Ex. 1003 ¶ 106). We note that Feldmeier discloses that “[a]ddress filtering is a process similar to address translation, except that rather than retrieving the data associated with an address, the process simply determines whether the address exists in a table of addresses.” Ex. 1005, 1:19–22. Feldmeier further discloses that “[t]he term address translation, as used herein, includes both address translation and address filtering operations.” Id. at 1:22–24. Also, as cited by Petitioner (Pet. 40), “Demultiplexer 1430 routes the packet . . . to either output packet queue 1450 or to discard line 1460 depending on the signal received from network address lookup 1440.” Ex. 1005, 13:24– 27. Finally, “[n]etwork address lookup 1440 is an apparatus for performing hierarchical address translations according to an embodiment of the invention.” Id. at 13:19–22. These passages suggest that a translation that yields no match (filtering) results in the packet being sent to the discard line. In contrast, the Specification supports that a successful match leading to a forwarding permission is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input or output permission by, among other things, “determining all of the successful matches”). Based on the above passages, Petitioner has not shown evidence that an affirmative match in Feldmeier results in a permission of packet forwarding, as required by claim 63. For the reasons stated above, we determine Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Feldmeier discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 63. Accordingly, the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 63 is anticipated by Feldmeier.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,023,853
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2015 · IPR2015-01049 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “(“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims 1, 2, 5, 7– 10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 of the ’577 patent and, therefore, deny the Petition for inter partes review..” slip op. at 2

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

    “We note that Feldmeier discloses that “[a]ddress filtering is a process similar to address translation, except that rather than retrieving the data associated with an address, the process simply determines whether the address exists in a table of addresses.” Ex. 1005, 1:19–22. Feldmeier further discloses that “[t]he term address translation, as used herein, includes both address translation and address filtering operations.” Id. at 1:22–24. Also, as cited by Petitioner, “Demultiplexer 1430 routes the packet . . . to either output packet queue 1450 or to discard line 1460 depending on the signal received from network address lookup 1440.” Id. at 13:24–27. Finally, “[n]etwork address lookup 1440 is an apparatus for performing hierarchical address translation[s] according to an embodiment of the invention.” Id. at 13:19–22. These passages suggest that a translation that yields no match (filtering) results in the packet being sent to the discard line. In contrast, the Specification supports that a successful match leading to a forwarding permission is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by, among other things, “determining all of the successful matches”); see also Prelim. Resp. 24 (“Feldmeier never discloses that its firewall device makes a decision to permit or deny a packet based on a matching entry in the network address lookup.”). Based on the above passages, Petitioner has not shown that, even under our broad construction of access control, an affirmative match in Feldmeier can result in a modification or a denial of packet forwarding, as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “to a forwarding permission is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by, among other things, “determining all of the successful matches”); see also Prelim. Resp. 24 (“Feldmeier never discloses that its firewall device makes a decision to permit or deny a packet based on a matching entry in the network address lookup.”). Based on the above passages, Petitioner has not shown that, even under our broad construction of access control, an affirmative match in Feldmeier can result in a modification or a denial of packet forwarding, as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 11

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

    “In a computer network for transmitting information, messages can be restricted from being transmitted from selected source devices to selected destination devices. In known computer networks, this form of restriction is known as “access control” and is performed by routers, which route messages (in the form of individual packets of information) from source devices to destination devices. Ex. 1001, 1:4–10. Patent Owner also cites certain dictionary definitions. Id. at 10–11. Patent Owner states that “modifying” transmission is “nowhere in the record.” Id. Nonetheless, Patent Owner does not explain why the embodiment cited by the Petitioner above is not relevant to construing the claims. Because the embodiment cited by Petitioner suggests that access control may be used to change the destination address of a packet, we apply a broader definition than proposed by Patent Owner. We find the broadest reasonable construction of “access control” to include restrictions or modifications on the intended destination address to which a packet is to be transmitted.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,377,577
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2015 · IPR2015-00973 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the reasons stated above, we determine Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Hendel discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 1. Accordingly, the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that independent claim 1, or claims 2, 5, 7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, 28, 29, and 31 that depend therefrom, are anticipated by Hendel.” slip op. at 11

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

    “patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1 U.S. Patent No. 6,081,522, filed June 30, 1997, issued June 27, 2000 (Ex. 1007, “Hendel”). 2 U.S. Patent No. 5,938,736, filed June 30, 1997, issued Aug. 17, 1999 (Ex. 1008, “Muller”). 3 U.S. Patent No. 5,867,495, filed Nov. 18, 1996, issued Feb. 2, 1999 (Ex. 1019, “Elliot”). 2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “access control,” “associative memory,” “packet label,” “responsive,” and “megapacket.” Pet. 5–9. We determine that the terms “associative memory,” “packet label,” “responsive,” and “megapacket” do not require express construction for purposes of our Decision.” slip op. at 6

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

    “As to the term “access control,” Petitioner asserts that “[a] person of skill in the art would have understood ‘access control’ to encompass restrictions or modifications of the transmission of a packet.” Pet. 5. Petitioner relies on the following passage from the Specification: [T]he invention can be used to augment or override routing decisions otherwise made by the router, using the access control element 120. In addition to specifying the packet 130 is to be dropped or forwarded to the higher-level processor, the access control element 120 can alter the output interface, which was selected by the routing element 110, to another selected output interface. The invention can thus be used to implement QOS (quality of service), and other administrative policies. Ex. 1001, 6:9–18. Patent Owner asserts “the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘access control’ is ‘restriction of packets from being transmitted from selected source devices to selected destination devices.’” Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner relies on the following passage from the Specification (id.): In a computer network for transmitting information, messages can be restricted from being transmitted from selected source devices to selected destination devices. In known computer networks, this form of restriction is known as “access control” and is performed by routers, which route messages (in the form of individual packets of information) from source devices to destination devices.” slip op. at 7

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

    “‘discarding’ packets does not concern access control,” that Hendel’s “packets are only filtered or discarded as part of the packet forwarding process when there is a problem with the packet,” and thus, “Hendel refers to such filtering or discarding occurring when packets are ‘ill-formed’ or have ‘no appropriate destination[s]’ or ‘unsupported’ headers.” Prelim Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1007, 8:39–40, 10:51–52, 13:9–11). We agree. Although we did not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the claim term “access result,” Patent Owner nevertheless makes a salient argument. We find Petitioner has not shown that the filtering decision is done “in response to [] at least one selected match” as required by claim 1. The Specification supports that a successful match leading to an access result is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by, among other things, “determining all of the successful matches”); see also Prelim. Resp. 21 (“the ‘matching entry,’ at most, provides a destination for Hendel’s system to forward the packet . . . [but,] where a destination is found, the packet is forwarded; there is no disclosure to generate any access result to possibly restrict access to the destination.”). Neither Petitioner, nor Petitioner’s Declarant, has tied an actual match in Hendel to a decision whether to forward the packet or make some modification to the intended transmission of the packet.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,377,577
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2015 · IPR2015-00976 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the patent did not disclose sufficient structure for certain means-plus-function limitations and Hendel did not show claim 63’s required access-control matching.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner has not shown that Hendel’s filtering decision is determined based on “matching one or more characteristics of said packet with one or more access control specifiers.” Petitioner simply states that the packet is “filtered.” Petitioner’s Declarant relies on the following text from Hendel: “In a preferred embodiment, the merge logic 66 directs the input port 50i to take one of the following actions on a packet: filter the packet; forward the packet at layer 2; forward the packet at layer 2; forward the packet as a layer 3 flow; process the packet as a layer 3 route; and forward the packet as multicast router.”) Ex. 1003 ¶ 132 (citing Ex. 1007, 13:4–8.) This citation does not specify, however, that a characteristic of the packet was matched to anything in order to make the filtering decision, only that the decision was the result of “merge logic.” Petitioner’s Declarant also relies on the following text from Hendel: “After the forwarding logic 52 has determined what to do with the packet, it passes that information to the input port 50i. If the input port 50i does not filter the packet, then it [takes actions to forward the packet].” Ex. 1003 ¶ 132 (citing Ex. 1007, 9:21–25.) However, this statement does not even say that forwarding logic tells input port 50i to filter the packet, and certainly does not explain how forwarding logic 52 would make a filtering decision. Finally, Petitioner’s declarant relies on Hendel’s discussion of sending the packet to a firewall for further processing if no match occurs (Ex. 1003 ¶ 132 (citing Ex. 1007, 9:21–25)), but the claim does not recite what happens if there is not a match. The specification confirms that a successful match is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by “determining all of the successful matches”). Neither Petitioner, nor Petitioner’s Declarant, has tied the matching in Hendel to a decision whether or not to forward a packet. For the reasons stated above, we determine Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Hendel discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 63. Accordingly, the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 63 is anticipated by Hendel.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Other

    “The corresponding structure need not be explicitly identified but must disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art what structure is identified in the specification. See Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It is unclear from the Specification whether the CPU, shown in Figure 2 as part of access control element 120, is the “higher-level processor” which is described at Ex. 1001, 5:21–25, or some other processor running IOS described at Ex. 1001, 1:33–37. It is also unclear which part of the access control element 120 is composed of “circuits adapted to particular process steps and data structures” as described at 3:36–39. Here, the patent is at best unclear whether the claimed function is implemented in software executed on a general purpose CPU or in hardware as a collection of circuits. See Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“That ordinarily skilled artisans could carry out the recited function in a variety of ways is precisely why claims written in ‘means-plus-function’ form must disclose the particular structure that is used to perform the recited function.”). We also find that it is equally unclear whether the following means- plus-function limitations in claim 46, which appear to involve access control element 120, are implemented in hardware or in software structure (or some combination of both): means for matching matchable information, said matchable information being responsive to said packet label, with said set of access control patterns in parallel; means for making a routing decision in response to said access result; means for permitting or denying access for said packet; and means for receiving a packet label responsible to a packet, said packet label being sufficient to perform access control processing for said packet. Because the Specification of the challenged patent lacks sufficient disclosure of structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the scope of independent claim 46, and claims 47–52, 54, 56, and 59–62 that depend therefrom, cannot be determined without speculation and, consequently, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art cannot be ascertained. Thus, we decline to institute an inter partes review as to any ground challenging claims 46–52, 54, 56, and 59–62.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner has not shown that Hendel’s filtering decision is determined based on “matching one or more characteristics of said packet with one or more access control specifiers.” Petitioner simply states that the packet is “filtered.” Petitioner’s Declarant relies on the following text from Hendel: “In a preferred embodiment, the merge logic 66 directs the input port 50i to take one of the following actions on a packet: filter the packet; forward the packet at layer 2; forward the packet at layer 2; forward the packet as a layer 3 flow; process the packet as a layer 3 route; and forward the packet as multicast router.”) Ex. 1003 ¶ 132 (citing Ex. 1007, 13:4–8.) This citation does not specify, however, that a characteristic of the packet was matched to anything in order to make the filtering decision, only that the decision was the result of “merge logic.” Petitioner’s Declarant also relies on the following text from Hendel: “After the forwarding logic 52 has determined what to do with the packet, it passes that information to the input port 50i. If the input port 50i does not filter the packet, then it [takes actions to forward the packet].” Ex. 1003 ¶ 132 (citing Ex. 1007, 9:21–25.) However, this statement does not even say that forwarding logic tells input port 50i to filter the packet, and certainly does not explain how forwarding logic 52 would make a filtering decision. Finally, Petitioner’s declarant relies on Hendel’s discussion of sending the packet to a firewall for further processing if no match occurs (Ex. 1003 ¶ 132 (citing Ex. 1007, 9:21–25)), but the claim does not recite what happens if there is not a match. The specification confirms that a successful match is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by “determining all of the successful matches”). Neither Petitioner, nor Petitioner’s Declarant, has tied the matching in Hendel to a decision whether or not to forward a packet. For the reasons stated above, we determine Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Hendel discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 63. Accordingly, the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 63 is anticipated by Hendel.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,023,853
• The United States Postal Service (Usps) / The United States Of America, As Represented By The Postmaster General v. Return Mail, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2015 · CBM2014-00116 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 39–44 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of relaying mailing address data without significantly more; anticipation by 1997 ACS was not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction We construe all terms, whether or not expressly discussed here, using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’548 Patent specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 93 F.3d 1268, 1278–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO regulation.”). During the pre-trial stage of this proceeding, the parties submitted their constructions for specific claim terms and we adopted constructions consistent with the constructions adopted by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Ex. 1011). Dec. 8–10. Return Mail does not dispute the constructions adopted. PO Resp. 16–27. Upon review of the parties’ explanations and supporting evidence before us, we discern no reason to modify our claim constructions set forth in the Decision on Institution with respect to these claim terms. Dec. 8–10. For convenience, our claim constructions are reproduced in the table below:” slip op. at 6

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionIneligibleUnpatentable

    “USPS has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 39, as a whole, is directed to the processing of returned mail items, involving decoding information, obtaining an updated address, and electronically transmitting that updated address to a transferee. USPS has shown that the steps are directed to the abstract idea of relaying mailing address data, with the inclusion of an electrical transmission step. Regarding whether claim 39 includes limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of relaying mailing address data, per our claim construction, USPS has shown that the “decoding” step is “deciphering information into useable form,” but that does not necessarily bring it out of the realm of processes performed in the past by human beings. In fact, all of the claimed steps could be performed in the human mind, with the exception of the transmitting step. Additionally, USPS has shown that what the data might be deemed to represent to the human mind — e.g., “information indicating whether the sender wants a corrected address to be provided for the intended recipient” — does not substantially affect the underlying structure or function of the claim or any machine on which it is carried out. Consistent with USPS’s position, the ’548 Patent disclosure does not describe any particular hardware to perform the steps recited in claim 39, but refers merely in broad terms to generic computer hardware and software.” slip op. at 14

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptIneligibleUnpatentable

    “significantly more than the abstract idea of relaying mailing address data, per our claim construction, USPS has shown that the “decoding” step is “deciphering information into useable form,” but that does not necessarily bring it out of the realm of processes performed in the past by human beings. In fact, all of the claimed steps could be performed in the human mind, with the exception of the transmitting step. Additionally, USPS has shown that what the data might be deemed to represent to the human mind — e.g., “information indicating whether the sender wants a corrected address to be provided for the intended recipient” — does not substantially affect the underlying structure or function of the claim or any machine on which it is carried out. Consistent with USPS’s position, the ’548 Patent disclosure does not describe any particular hardware to perform the steps recited in claim 39, but refers merely in broad terms to generic computer hardware and software.” slip op. at 14

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

    “deciding between the proffered constructions of “[d]ecipher information into useable form” and “[c]onvert information into useable form,” the court concluded that “using the terms ‘decipher’ and ‘deciphered’ more closely follow the customary meaning of the terms and reflects the claim language. This is because decoding must operate on encoded data,” which is recognized in the term “decipher” but not in “convert.” Ex. 1011, 22–23. USPS contends that “the carrier converts into intelligible form the participant code and endorsement thereby performing the claimed ‘decoding.’” Pet. 45. However, we find no support within 1997 ACS that the carrier decodes or deciphers the participant code or endorsement because the carrier (a person) is merely reading those indicators. The indicator “ADRESS SERVICE REQUESTED” is merely read and there is no disclosure that the carrier decodes the participant code or the keyline. We disagree with Dr. Lubenow that the plain-English endorsements “meet the plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘code.’” Ex. 1028 ¶ 18. As such, we are not persuaded that the carrier in 1997 ACS acts to decode encoded data on the returned mail items.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 6,826,548 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationcites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 6,826,548
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2015 · IPR2015-00974 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving unpatentability under the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may be authorized only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented by Petitioner does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims 1–10, 12, 13, 15–28, 30, 31, 33–43, 45–49, 51–64, 66, 67, and 69–72 of the ’668 patent. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–10, 12, 13, 15–28, 30, 31, 33–43, 45–49, 51–64, 66, 67, and 69–72 of the ’668 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “interpreted according to their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent” in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Applying that standard, we interpret the claim terms according to their ordinary and customary meaning in the context of the patent’s written description. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Petitioner proposes constructions for ten terms. Pet. 9–14. Patent Owner disputes some of those constructions and proposes an additional term for construction. Prelim. Resp. 9–19. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that we need not expressly construe any of the terms for which the parties have proposed constructions.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelOther

    “expressly disclose a limitation, may nevertheless anticipate if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the prior art to disclose the limitation and could combine the prior art description with his own knowledge to make the claimed invention. See Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000). After reviewing the arguments of the parties and the testimony of Dr. Lin, however, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art1 would understand the cited sentence in Amara as necessarily disclosing that the network interface ports of Amara’s internetworking device are configurable by its internal applications. Dr. Lin relies on pages 132 to 134 of Habraken, which is a textbook that describes, inter alia, configuring the interfaces of a Cisco router through a Setup dialog. While this passage describes configuring a port, it is not clear what aspect of the Cisco router is providing the Setup dialog. Nothing, for example, attributes the Setup dialog to “control plane processes” or “internal applications” or the like of the Cisco router. Even assuming that the Setup dialog is provided by an “internal application” of the Cisco router, 1 Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that a person of ordinary skill as of the critical date would have had a Master of Science Degree in an academic area emphasizing computer networking or, alternatively, a Bachelor Degree in an academic area emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software engineering and several years of experience in computer network engineering and the design of computer networks. Pet. 7. nothing in Habraken supports the determination that the network interface ports of all routers, such as the 3Com router described in Amara, are configurable by “internal applications” of that router. At best, Habraken establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have known that Cisco routers include a Setup dialog for configuring router interfaces. This is not sufficient, however, to persuade us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read Amara as necessarily disclosing that the network interface ports of the “device” are configurable by the internal applications.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Amara’s express disclosure is not sufficient. Amara’s disclosure that internal applications control or configure the device only “typically” suggests that they do not necessarily serve that purpose and, therefore, that another component of device 100 may serve that purpose. Moreover, Amara’s disclosure that internal applications control or configure the “device” is not sufficiently specific as to whether the interface ports are an aspect of the device being controlled or configured by the internal applications. Our reviewing court has held that a prior art reference that does not expressly disclose a limitation, may nevertheless anticipate if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the prior art to disclose the limitation and could combine the prior art description with his own knowledge to make the claimed invention. See Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000). After reviewing the arguments of the parties and the testimony of Dr. Lin, however, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art1 would understand the cited sentence in Amara as necessarily disclosing that the network interface ports of Amara’s internetworking device are configurable by its internal applications. Dr. Lin relies on pages 132 to 134 of Habraken, which is a textbook that describes, inter alia, configuring the interfaces of a Cisco router through a Setup dialog. While this passage describes configuring a port, it is not clear what aspect of the Cisco router is providing the Setup dialog. Nothing, for example, attributes the Setup dialog to “control plane processes” or “internal applications” or the like of the Cisco router. Even assuming that the Setup dialog is provided by an “internal application” of the Cisco router, 1 Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that a person of ordinary skill as of the critical date would have had a Master of Science Degree in an academic area emphasizing computer networking or, alternatively, a Bachelor Degree in an academic area emphasizing the design of electrical, computer, or software engineering and several years of experience in computer network engineering and the design of computer networks. Pet. 7.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,224,668
• EMC Corporation / Rsa Security LLC v. Secure Axcess, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2015 · IPR2014-00475 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 and 25–32 are unpatentable: some are anticipated by Arent or Tygar, and the remaining claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “As an initial matter, in accordance with the plain language of the claims and because the ’191 patent does not provide any special meaning for the term “received data,” we construe “received data” to mean “data that has been received.” The term “received data” implies data has been received but does not itself require the data to be received at a particular time, in a particular manner, by a particular device (such as an authentication host computer), or from a particular device (such as a device other than an authentication host computer). None of independent claims 1, 31, or 32 expressly recites from where the received data is sent, much less recite expressly that the data is sent from a device other than the authentication host computer. Of independent claims 1, 31, and 32, only independent claim 32 expressly requires a particular device—“an authentication host computer”—to receive data. Independent claims 1 and 31 require acting on received data in a certain manner—to transform (claim 1), or format (claim 31), received data in a certain manner to create formatted data. Thus, none of claims 1, 31, or 32 expressly requires an authentication host computer to receive data from a device other than the authentication host computer, as Patent Owner contends.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that none of the claims requires the authenticity key to locate the preferences file or have the ability to determine the location of a preferences file. First, none of the independent claims recites the authenticity key being used to locate the preferences file.10 Nor is there evidence of written description support for such an interpretation— the ’191 patent does not disclose using an authenticity key to locate the preferences file. Rather, as noted previously, the ’191 patent discloses in a preferred embodiment that a preferences key, which is different than an authenticity key, is used to locate the preferences file. See Ex. 1001, 4:38– 40. This understanding is confirmed by Patent Owner’s declarant Dr. Katz. See Ex. 1034, 164:20–165:5. Further, Dr. Katz acknowledges the 9 To the extent that Patent Owner argues Dr. Tygar’s testimony concerning a particular embodiment disclosed in the ’191 patent acknowledges Patent Owner’s proposed construction here is correct (Paper 23, 2–4), we disagree. Dr. Tygar did not provide testimony about the meaning of the claims, only what a particular embodiment in the ’191 patent described. See Paper 27, 1– 3. 10 Claim 1 recites “returning. . . the formatted data to enable the authenticity key to be retrieved from the formatted data and to locate a preferences file”; independent claim 29 recites “the authenticity key enables location of a preferences file”; independent claims 31 and 32 require retrieving the authenticity key to locate a preferences file. Independent claim 17 does not recite the location of a preferences file. 19 authenticity key does not have information to locate the preferences file. See, e.g., Ex. 1034, 165:6–9. Petitioner’s proposed construction of independent claims 1, 17, 29, 31, and 32 as only requiring some action as a precondition to locating the preferences file better comports with the claims and written description of the ’191 patent. For example, the ’191 patent discloses that after verification of a received digital signature, the preferences key is requested and subsequently used to determine the location of the preferences file. See Ex. 1001, 4:22–40 (referring to Fig. 5). The verification of the received digital signature must occur before the preferences key can be requested and used to determine the location of the preferences file. In other words, verification of the received digital signature is a precondition of requesting and using the preferences key to determine the location of the preferences file. Thus, verification of the received digital signature enables—supplies the opportunity for11—the requested preferences key. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction that the” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The parties propose similar levels of ordinary skill in the art and do not directly challenge the other’s proposal. Ex. 1002 ¶ 12 (testimony by Petitioner’s declarant); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (testimony by Patent Owner’s declarant). The parties’ declarants differ in the amount of work experience one with ordinary skill in the art with a bachelor’s degree would have. Patent Owner’s declarant opines two years of work experience would be sufficient, whereas Petitioner’s declarant opines five years of work experience would be necessary for one of ordinary skill in the art with a bachelor’s degree. Id. Despite these initial differences, Petitioner later acknowledged that record evidence supports a level of ordinary skill having two years of work experience. Hearing Tr. 32:1–16; see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record). We adopt the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer 23 science (or an equivalent field) and least two years of work experience in the area of information technology.” slip op. at 23

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Weighing the testimony of the declarants, as discussed above, we credit Dr. Tygar’s testimony over Dr. Katz’s testimony that Arent discloses sending the digital signature separately from the message. See, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech 31 Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1368 (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). First, Dr. Katz does not address sufficiently the Petitioner’s position regarding the signed web offer being the formatted data recited in claims 1, 31, and 32. Rather, Dr. Katz focuses his testimony on Arent’s technology for authentication of a merchant, whereas Petitioner relies on Arent’s authentication of the offer. Compare Pet. 29–32, Reply 3–4 with Ex. 1034 153:10–154:21, 159:17–160:19; see also Ex. 1035 ¶ 52 (Dr. Tygar confirming Dr. Katz based his understanding on Arent’s discussion of the authentication of a merchant). Second, Dr. Tygar directly counters Dr. Katz’s testimony. Dr. Tygar testifies that “[c]onventional digital signature techniques would not have sent the message and signature separately, especially in the context of signing web pages.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 53 (explaining how “an elaborate system would be needed to correlate specific instances of web pages for specific user/browser combinations and specific moments in time and the corresponding digital signatures” if digital signatures were sent separately from messages/web pages).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 7,631,191 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,631,191
• Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2015 · IPR2014-00631 · APJ Richard E Rice · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 13–16, 19–21, and 24 as anticipated by Mishima; claims 3–7, 9, 10, 12, and 15–23 under specified obviousness combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument that we should limit “selecting” in claim 1 to “user . . . selecting” (PO Resp. 3) is not persuasive for the reasons that we provided in the Decision to Institute. Inst. Dec. 8–9. In addition, Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction would exclude embodiments in which the image capture device, itself, selects an automatic trigger condition. E.g., Ex. 1001, 10:28–32 (“The camera automatically enters the automatic response mode as soon as power is applied unless otherwise instructed by the operator. Alternately, configuration tools can be provided to select from various sensed conditions.”), 12:23–26 (“Once one or more subjects of interest have been stored, digital image capture device 10 can employ these subjects of interest as image capture triggers whenever it is placed in automatic response mode.”). Patent Owner has not explained sufficiently why “selecting” should be interpreted to exclude such embodiments. See, e.g., Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that, at least where claims can be interpreted reasonably to include a specific embodiment, it is incorrect to construe the claims to exclude that embodiment, absent probative evidence to the contrary). For the above reasons, we determine that the term “selecting” carries its ordinary and customary meanings, and is not limited to acts performed by a user of the image capture device; and we maintain our interpretation.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “[D]isavowal requires that ‘the specification [or prosecution history] make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature.’” GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting SciMed Life Sys. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Applying that standard in this case, we are not persuaded that the prosecution history makes clear that claim 1 does not include “entering” of a threshold level by the image capture device itself. The statement on which Patent Owner relies is only part of a sentence; the full sentence reads as follows: In amended Claim 1, a trigger condition and associated threshold [are] selected by a user in a step prior to image capture, the image capture device then monitors a signal corresponding to the trigger condition so that the image capture device can automatically determine when an image should he captured without intervention by a user. Ex. 1015, 6 (emphasis added). The thrust of that sentence, as explained in the paragraph that follows it in the prosecution history, is that, in claim 1, “the timing of image capture[] is determined automatically by the image capture device without the involvement of the user.” Id. (emphasis added). The Beck reference is not distinguished by the applicant on the basis of how the threshold level is selected, but rather on how an image is captured “after a trigger condition and associated threshold ha[ve] been satisfied.” Id. As such, whether “a trigger condition and associated threshold” are selected by a user, or by the device itself, is not central to applicant’s argument distinguishing the Beck reference. Accordingly, the statement that “a trigger condition and associated threshold [are] selected by a user” does not evidence a clear intent to disavow claim scope, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention. For the reasons discussed above, we determine that the broadest slip op. at 24

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

    “In opposition, Patent Owner argues that Mishima fails to disclose entering a threshold level corresponding to the automatic trigger condition, because, as asserted by Dr. Bovik, “the user is not involved in setting the threshold in any way.” PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 72). As discussed above, however, the user does not need to be involved in setting the threshold level under our interpretation of “entering.” See supra Section II.A.4. That is, the term “entering” is not limited to acts of entering performed by a user, but encompasses acts of entering performed by the image capture device itself. See id. We determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Mishima discloses “entering a threshold level.” See PO Resp. 32. In particular, Petitioner has shown that, when the user sets Mishima’s device in the automatic mode and selects a reference image for comparison with a captured image or photographic subject, the device sets or selects a threshold level, such as Kn, P, or 40%, and, thus, satisfies the “entering a threshold level” requirement under our claim construction. See Pet. 13–15; Pet. Reply 13–15; Ex. 1002 ¶ 43; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 13, 48–50; Ex. 1005 ¶ 40 (describing “setting a threshold value Kn” based on reference brightness value K0), ¶ 90 (setting or selecting “X < P” to determine a match, where P is a threshold value and X is the average square of differences between the part that is subject to recognition and the user-selected image pattern); ¶ 114 (describing setting a threshold level as “40%” of “the number of pixels that produce 1”). Moreover, we are not persuaded by Dr. Bovik’s testimony that “the user [in Mishima] is not involved in setting the threshold in any way.” See Ex. 2006 ¶ 72. Dr. Bovik does not address adequately Mishima’s disclosure that the user places the camera in the automatic imaging mode and selects a reference image6 for comparison with a captured image or photographic subject. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 26, 37, 38, 83, 85, 87, 97, 98, 107, 108; see Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 83). Those acts satisfy “selecting an automatic image trigger condition.” See Pet. 14; Ex. 1002 ¶ 42. Dr. Bovik does not discuss whether those acts also satisfy “entering a threshold level corresponding to the automatic image trigger condition.” As such, Dr. Bovik’s analysis of Mishima is inconsistent with his” slip op. at 31

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

    “In opposition, Patent Owner argues that a person of skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Mishima and Misawa because: (1) the devices of Mishima and Misawa are not similar as Petitioner contends and, in fact, operate in fundamentally different ways, (2) the reasons Petitioner provides for combining Mishima and Misawa are undermined by the teachings of those references, and (3) Misawa would discourage one of ordinary skill from combining it with Mishima to arrive at the inventions of claims 3-6. PO Resp. 34. Patent Owner argues, for example, that Misawa “has nothing to do with automatic image trigger conditions, thresholds, or automatic image capture.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 91). We are persuaded by Petitioner, however, that Patent Owner’s argument is largely unresponsive to Petitioner’s asserted reason to combine, which “does not rely on Misawa for automatic image capture, but for an example user interface for creating an image database.” See Pet. Reply 15. We also are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill “would have looked to Misawa’s user interface as an example of how to construct/control image feature database 80 used in Mishima’s camera.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex 1005 ¶¶ 80, 94); see Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 53–55. Patent Owner has not persuaded us that using Misawa’s selection/extraction process in Mishima’s camera would have been outside the skill in the art, or yielded an unpredictable result. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Further, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Misawa would have led one in a divergent direction and, thus, teaches away from the recited method. See PO Resp. 44–45 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 108–111). Patent Owner has not shown that Misawa criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages investigation into the invention claimed. See Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009 (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed.”) (emphases added; citation omitted). Patent Owner makes essentially the same arguments for claims 4–6 as” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 7,817,914 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,817,914
• Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2015 · IPR2014-00632 · APJ Richard E Rice · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 13–16, 19–21, and 24 as anticipated by Mishima; claims 3–7, 9, 10, 12, 15–18, 22, and 23 as obvious over specified combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument that we should limit “selecting” in claim 1 to “user . . . selecting” (PO Resp. 3) is not persuasive for the reasons that we provided in the Decision to Institute. Inst. Dec. 8–9. In addition, Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction would exclude embodiments in which the image capture device, itself, selects an automatic trigger condition. E.g., Ex. 1001, 10:28–32 (“The camera automatically enters the automatic response mode as soon as power is applied unless otherwise instructed by the operator. Alternately, configuration tools can be provided to select from various sensed conditions.”), 12:23–26 (“Once one or more subjects of interest have been stored, digital image capture device 10 can employ these subjects of interest as image capture triggers whenever it is placed in automatic response mode.”). Patent Owner has not explained sufficiently why “selecting” should be interpreted to exclude such embodiments. See, e.g., Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that, at least where claims can be interpreted reasonably to include a specific embodiment, it is incorrect to construe the claims to exclude that embodiment, absent probative evidence to the contrary). For the above reasons, we determine that the term “selecting” carries its ordinary and customary meanings, and is not limited to acts performed by a user of the image capture device; and we maintain our interpretation.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “[D]isavowal requires that ‘the specification [or prosecution history] make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature.’” GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting SciMed Life Sys. Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Applying that standard in this case, we are not persuaded that the prosecution history makes clear that claim 1 does not include “entering” of a threshold level by the image capture device itself. slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “7 Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art as “(1) a Bachelor’s degree in electronics, computer science, or a related discipline and 2-3 years of camera electronics design and implementation experience, or (2) a Master’s degree or higher in a field such as electronics, computer science, or a related discipline with some concentration in imaging systems or image processing.” PO Resp. 5 n.2 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 16–17; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 25–27). We adopt that definition for purposes of this Final Written Decision. 8 Patent Owner does not contend in the Patent Owner Response that any secondary considerations are present that would render the challenged claims patentable over the combined teachings of these references.” slip op. at 35

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “electronic device.” See Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 9–16). We credit Dr. Stevenson’s testimony on this point: Data entry in electronic devices occurs through a variety of different mechanisms. For instance, in the context of electronic devices, including digital cameras, “entering” of data encompasses the electronic input of data into a component of the electronic device, such as a processor or memory. An electronic device’s operating instructions may cause the device to input data into a processor or memory. The entered data may be data from another memory (e.g., read-only memory (“ROM”)), a removable memory card, or a network.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,817,914 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,817,914
• Oracle Corporation v. Thought, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 23, 2015 · IPR2014-00117 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as anticipated by Franklin; claim 2 is also unpatentable over Franklin and JVM; claims 6–7 are unpatentable over Franklin and Chang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “have understood the recited phrase “any other” to mean that the reliable messaging service of claim 1 is a reliable messaging service with capabilities similar to those of the Java Messaging Service (“JMS”). Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 83). In support of its position, Patent Owner relies upon the testimony of Sam Malek, Ph.D. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 80–85. Dr. Malek provides a detailed description of JMS (id. ¶¶ 39–47), however, he does not provide a sufficient factual basis for his assertion that “any other” would be limited to services similar to JMS. During his deposition, Dr. Malek testified that JMS was an example of a messaging service and that there were other messaging services beyond JMS. Ex. 1016, 48:19–24. He, however, asserts that because the ’912 Patent mentions JMS, that in itself is an indication that the claims are directed to a particular form of messaging performed by JMS. Id. at 50:19–51:7. We note, however, that the ’912 Patent does not limit the messaging service to JMS; instead it lists JMS as an example of a messaging service that could be used. Ex. 1001, 5:57–60 (“caching system that utilizes a messaging system such as the Java Messaging Service (JMS)”), 16:28–30 (“the Java Messaging Service (JMS) or to any other reliable messaging service”), 16:46–49 (“JMS . . . or other reliable messaging service), 41:22– 25 (“JMS (or similar) notification caching system”). At most, there is one passing reference in the specification to the messaging system being “similar” to JMS, but the specification does not describe in what way the messaging system should be similar to JMS, nor does it state how similar the messaging system should be to JMS. Thus, we find that the ’912 Patent does not require JMS or any specific features of JMS. Therefore, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “any other” as recited in claim 1 of the ’912 Patent does not limit the claimed messaging service to those similar to JMS. As to the phrase “available in the object programming language system environment,” Patent Owner argues that this should mean that the recited messaging service has an interface for object oriented programs to use the messaging service. PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 83). In support of its position, Patent Owner cites Dr. Malek’s testimony. Dr. Malek, however, provides no analysis or factual support for that assertion outside of a discussion of JMS’s program language system environment. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 82–83. We determine that this term is not limited to the environment of the JMS. Therefore, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “available in the object programming language system environment” is not limited to having an interface for object oriented programs to use the messaging service. We are not persuaded that express construction is necessary for the terms “any other” and “available in the object programming language system environment.” In addition, after reviewing the evidence of record, we determine that our preliminary construction of “reliable messaging service” to be “a messaging service that sends messages that will be received according to guarantees made by the service” is the broadest reasonable construction of the term and, as such, we do not modify our preliminary construction.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Ex. 1014 ¶ 9.2.1.1.3.4. We find Dr. Hosking’s testimony to be well reasoned. “‘[A]nticipation by inherent disclosure is appropriate only when the reference discloses prior art that must necessarily include the unstated limitation.’” Rexnord Indus., LLC v. Kappos, 705 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 483 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). According to our construction of reliable messaging service, such a service makes guarantees regarding the receipt of messages. Therefore, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand an unreliable messaging service to be one that makes no such guarantees. It follows that if an unreliable messaging service is used, then there is no guarantee that invalidation messages would be received. The stated purpose of the algorithms described in Franklin is “to ensure that such caching does not result in the violation of transaction semantics.” Ex. 1005, 1. Franklin goes on to note that “care must be taken to ensure that the presence of multiple copies [of data] in the distributed system does not jeopardize the correctness of programs.” Id. at 2. The absences of guarantees regarding the receipt of invalidation messages would render the disclosed algorithms ineffective for their stated purpose because one cannot ensure that messages are received if an unreliable messaging system is used. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would read Franklin’s disclosure to require a reliable messaging service.” slip op. at 16

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

    “in element (c) of claim 1. PO Resp. 25–33. We note, however, that “as a general rule the claim is not limited to performance of the steps in the order recited, unless the claim explicitly or implicitly requires a specific order.” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). This is particularly true here because claim 1 recites a computer system and not a method. According to Patent Owner, the inclusion of the term “when” means that the invalidation message cannot be sent to the clients before the update is persisted in the data source. PO Resp. 29. Patent Owner urges that the term “when” has an ordinary and customary meaning of “at or during which time.” Id. at 29 n.5 (quoting Ex. 2003, 1424). We do not agree with Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation. Franklin discloses the sending of invalidation messages and the commitment to the database to be contemporaneous activities. Ex. 1005, 23–24. Franklin describes that in the O2PL algorithms a “transaction enters its commit phase” then it sends invalidation messages to the server and the client regarding the data to be updated, and then the data is updated in accordance with the algorithm. Id. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the sending of invalidation messages to be part of the “commit phase.” As such, the sending of invalidation messages would occur “when” the update is being committed. Therefore, we determine that this disclosure meets the limitations of element (c) of claim 1.” slip op. at 18

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

    “reasoning to combine JVM and Franklin. PO Resp. 38. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s assertion. We, instead, are persuaded that the Java Virtual Machine was well-known, and that the implementation of a caching system, such as the one described by Franklin, in the Java Virtual Machine environment would have been within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill, and that such modification would have been motivated by the knowledge of one of ordinary skill. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is . . . necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”). Therefore, we are not persuaded of improper hindsight reasoning. After considering the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Franklin and JVM would have rendered obvious claim 2.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,985,912 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,985,912

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.