• General Electric Co. v. University Of Virginia Patent FoundationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00358 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 141–146, 148, 151, 152, 159, 160, 242–246, 248, and 251 are unpatentable as anticipated; claims 141–152, 159, 160, and 242–251 are also unpatentable as obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “address the applicable burdens of proof on the parties. As an initial matter, the overall burden of persuasion of proving unpatentability on the asserted grounds based on Mugler 2000 lies with GE, and that burden never shifts. See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, GE bears the burden to establish that Mugler 2000 qualifies as prior art. The burden of production, however, may shift between the parties. See Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1375–76; Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–80. Here, GE satisfied the initial burden of production by asserting that Mugler 2000 is § 102(a) prior art, and presenting evidence that it was published and publicly available before the priority date of the ’644 Patent.9 See Pet. 11. The burden of production then shifted to UVAPF, and UVAPF met that burden by producing evidence to demonstrate that the relevant content of Mugler 2000 was solely the work of the inventors of the ’644 Patent, i.e., the declarations of Dr. Mugler and Dr. Kiefer.10 See PO Resp. 18–20; Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1376 (“[T]he shifting of the burden of production is warranted [when] the patentee affirmatively seeks to establish a proposition not relied on by the patent challenger and not a necessary predicate for the unpatentability claim asserted.”). Consequently, the burden returned to GE to prove that the evidence of record does not establish that Mugler 2000 was solely the work of the named inventors. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380. GE did not carry this burden.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “An inventor’s own work is not prior art under § 102(a). See Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Katz, 687 F.2d at 454. In determining whether a reference is the work of the named inventor(s), the relevant inquiry is whether the relevant content of the reference—such as “the methods, detailed results, statistical analysis and discussion,” or “the design, trial, and analysis of results”—was solely the work of the inventor(s). See Allergan, 754 F.3d at 969. For example, an article may be solely the work of an inventor if the remaining co-authors were merely students performing tasks under the inventor’s direction and supervision. See Katz, 687 F.2d at 455–56. Before turning to the evidence to apply these precepts, we first address the applicable burdens of proof on the parties. As an initial matter, the overall burden of persuasion of proving unpatentability on the asserted grounds based on Mugler 2000 lies with GE, and that burden never shifts. See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, GE bears the burden to establish that Mugler 2000 qualifies as prior art. The burden of production, however, may shift between the parties. See Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1375–76; Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–80.” slip op. at 10

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

    “For a patent to claim priority to the filing date of its provisional application, the written description of the provisional application must be sufficient to support the relevant claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (citing New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Sufficient written description support requires providing enough information in the application to indicate to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262–64 (C.C.P.A. 1976). The disclosure need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba, but a disclosure that “merely renders the invention obvious” is insufficient. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Resp. 21–59. More specifically, UVAPF argues the ’182 Application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims such that they are entitled to the priority date of the ’182 Application, i.e., December 21, 2000. Id. Based on the full record, however, the challenged claims have not been shown to have sufficient support in the written description of the ’182 Application and, thus, priority has not been established earlier than December 21, 2001. As with § 102(a), GE bears the burden to prove that Mugler is prior art under § 102(b) as part of its overall burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. GE also bears the initial burden of production, but satisfied that burden by asserting that Mugler 2000 is prior art under § 102(b). See id. at 1379. The burden then shifted to UVAPF to produce evidence that the challenged claims of the ’644 Patent are entitled to an earlier priority date. See id. at 1380. UVAPF met that burden by producing arguments and evidence to attempt to prove that the disclosure of the ’182 Application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. See PO Resp. 22–59. Thus, the burden shifted back to GE to prove that the ’182 Application does not support the claims. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380. GE met that burden successfully, as explained below. For a patent to claim priority to the filing date of its provisional application, the written description of the provisional application must be sufficient to support the relevant claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (citing New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Sufficient written description support requires providing enough information in the application to indicate to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262–64 (C.C.P.A. 1976). The disclosure need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba, but a disclosure that “merely renders the invention obvious” is insufficient. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS RE44,644 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
• General Electric Co. v. University Of Virginia Patent FoundationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00357 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 75, 76, 78–82, 84–92, 94–96, 107, 111, 139, 140, 157, 158, 169–178, 180–184, 186–194, 196–198, 209, 213, 241, and 254–260 are unpatentable under § 102(b); the remaining challenged claims are unpatentable under § 103(a).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “An inventor’s own work is not prior art under § 102(a). See Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Katz, 687 F.2d at 454. In determining whether a reference is the work of the named inventor(s), the relevant inquiry is whether the relevant content of the reference—such as “the methods, detailed results, statistical analysis and discussion,” or “the design, trial, and analysis of results”—was solely the work of the inventor(s). See Allergan, 754 F.3d at 969. For example, an article may be solely the work of an inventor if the remaining co-authors were merely students performing tasks under the inventor’s direction and supervision. See Katz, 687 F.2d at 455–56.” slip op. at 11

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

    “For a patent to claim priority to the filing date of its provisional application, the written description of the provisional application must be sufficient to support the relevant claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (citing New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Sufficient written description support requires providing enough information in the application to indicate to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262–64 (C.C.P.A. 1976). The disclosure need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba, but a disclosure that “merely renders the invention obvious” is insufficient. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “For a patent to claim priority to the filing date of its provisional application, the written description of the provisional application must be sufficient to support the relevant claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (citing New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Sufficient written description support requires providing enough information in the application to indicate to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262–64 (C.C.P.A. 1976). The disclosure need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba, but a disclosure that “merely renders the invention obvious” is insufficient. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “For a patent to claim priority to the filing date of its provisional application, the written description of the provisional application must be sufficient to support the relevant claims of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (citing New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Sufficient written description support requires providing enough information in the application to indicate to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claims. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262–64 (C.C.P.A. 1976). The disclosure need not recite the claimed invention in haec verba, but a disclosure that “merely renders the invention obvious” is insufficient. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS RE44,644 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
• Asustek Computer, Inc. / Asus Computer International v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. LtdRehearing granted
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2017 · IPR2016-00647 · APJ Glenn J Perry · IPR · Rehearing

  Granted petitioner’s request for reconsideration and added institution of the §102 Cioffi challenge to claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “III. CONCLUSIONS For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that our Decision to Institute overlooked or misapprehended the matters discussed in this Decision, and that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to its challenge as to the patentability of claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 as being anticipated by Cioffi. The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of any challenged claims or the construction of any claim terms. Our final decision will be based on the record as fully developed during trial.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Upon review on rehearing, we are persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently for purposes of institution that data and synchronization signals are multiplexed and encoded by MUX & ENCODER 43 in Cioffi’s Figure 3. Multiplexed sub-symbols are passed to modulator 45, which incorporates an inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT). Based on this understanding of Cioffi, the detailed reading of claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 on Cioffi at Petition pages 35–53, supported by the Lyon Declaration (Ex. 1003), presents a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to this challenge. We, therefore, modify our Decision on Institution to include this challenge.” slip op. at 4

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

    “Upon review on rehearing, we are persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently for purposes of institution that data and synchronization signals are multiplexed and encoded by MUX & ENCODER 43 in Cioffi’s Figure 3. Multiplexed sub-symbols are passed to modulator 45, which incorporates an inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT). Based on this understanding of Cioffi, the detailed reading of claims 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 on Cioffi at Petition pages 35–53, supported by the Lyon Declaration (Ex. 1003), presents a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to this challenge. We, therefore, modify our Decision on Institution to include this challenge.” slip op. at 4

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,430,148
• Qiagen Inc. v. Oxford Immunotec Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2017 · IPR2016-01575 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–9 unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to institute an inter partes review only if the information presented in the Petition shows “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; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.4(a), 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, pursuant to § 314, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’821 Patent, and the Petition is denied. A.” slip op. at 2

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

    “structurally related to the physical substrate holding the printed matter, may not be given patentable weight. In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[A] limitation is printed matter only if it claims the content of information.” Id. If determined to claim printed matter, the limitation is nonetheless given patentable weight “if the claimed informational content has a functional or structural relation to the substrate.” Id. at 851. According to Petitioner, the “CD8+ epitope” limitation claims printed matter because it is merely the content of information, namely “the string of amino acids in a subfragment of ESAT-6 that includes the amino acids that constitute a CD8+ epitope.” Pet. 15. Petitioner likens the “CD8+ epitope” to an “instruction limitation” that merely “informs” about the epitope in ESAT-6. Id. (citing In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). We disagree. In Kao, the relevant limitation claimed “providing information” regarding a particular biological correlation, which the Federal Circuit concluded had no functional relationship to the following step of “providing” a particular drug treatment. Kao, 639 F.3d at 1072–73. Here, the relevant limitation is “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope.” The epitope is not “printed” onto a physical substrate (i.e., the peptide); it is part of the substrate—the epitope is a sequence of amino acids that is recognized by a CD8+ T cell, and those amino acids are part of the amino acids that make up the peptide itself. Moreover, the epitope does not merely inform someone of purely informational content. Rather, the epitope has a structural and functional relationship to the claims and to the substrate (i.e., the peptide subfragments). For example, claim 1 recites, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope” (emphasis added). The claim further recites, “measuring secretion of a cytokine from said T cells” to determine “whether said T cells are activated by said peptide subfragment.” The specification describes the activation of CD8+ T cells by peptide subfragments that are CD8+ epitopes. See Ex. 1001, 2:30–45. Thus, the CD8+ epitopes are involved in the activation of T cells, which yields immunogenicity (i.e., generation of an immune system response) in the form of cytokine secretion, which is measured as part of the claimed method. The CD8+ epitope limitation is more akin to the attribute data object (ADO) limitations in In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1994), where the recited ADOs were processed by a computer and affected how data was stored and organized in a memory. Thus, the CD8+ epitope limitation does not constitute printed matter with no patentable weight. See DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 851. B.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Pet. 22–34. The Petition does not, however, demonstrate sufficiently that Brandt-1996 discloses, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope,” which is recited in both independent claims. Brandt-1996 discloses the results of a study in which murine (i.e., mouse) T cells were exposed to whole ESAT-6 protein, as well as nine subfragments of ESAT-6. Ex. 1010, 3528, Fig. 3. Whole ESAT-6 protein, as well as two of the subfragments, yielded a response from the T cells in the form of significant IFN-γ release. See id. at 3529–31, Figs. 2, 4. Petitioner argues that Brandt-1996 discloses exposing T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 because it reports a positive response (i.e., heightened IFN-γ release) to the “p1-20” peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 (also referred to as the “p1” peptide). Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1010, 3531, Table 2). The Petition does not explain, however, why exposing the mice in Brandt-1996 to the “p1-20” peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 necessarily exposed the T cells to an immunogenic amount of peptide containing a CD8+ epitope. Petitioner’s assertion that a CD8+ epitope is not required by the claims is based on its arguments regarding printed matter, which are unpersuasive as discussed above. Alternatively, Petitioner argues that whole ESAT-6 protein contains CD8+ epitopes and, thus, the “ESAT-6 fragments disclosed in Brandt-1996 necessarily constitute ESAT-6 subfragments that contain a CD8+ epitope.” Pet. 23. Only two of the subfragments tested in Brandt-1996 were immunogenic, however, as required by the challenged claims. See Ex. 1010, Fig. 4 (showing responses to the “p1” (amino acids 1-20) and “p6” (amino acids 51-70) subfragments). Petitioner asserts that amino acids 15–29 and 61–82 correspond to murine CD8+ epitopes, but neither of them correspond to the immunogenic subfragments disclosed in Brandt-1996. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1008, 3348 (“Bennekov-2006”)). Although Petitioner also asserts that ESAT-6 contains human and bovine CD8+ epitopes (id.), Brandt-1996 only tested mice and, thus, does not disclose immunogenicity for these epitopes specific to other species. Finally, Petitioner argues Brandt-1996 shows that whole ESAT-6 protein is immunogenic, which inherently discloses an immunogenic amount of subfragments containing CD8+ epitopes because ESAT-6 protein necessarily is processed into subfragments. Pet. 24. As Patent Owner argues, however, the record indicates that exposure to ESAT-6 protein does not necessarily produce a CD8+ response, particularly when a non-viral vector is used. See Prelim. Resp. 55–57. For example, Bennekov-2006 (cited by Petitioner as disclosing murine CD8+ epitopes) reports a response from CD8+ T cells of mice exposed to ESAT-6 protein via an adenovirus vector, but no significant CD8+ response when a liposome vector was used. See Ex. 1008, 3348, Fig. 2. It is undisputed that the Brandt-1996 study did not use a viral vector. Despite citing Bennekov-2006 to support its inherency arguments, Petitioner does not address or explain these aspects of Bennekov-2006, or their bearing on the disclosures of Brandt-1996. For the above reasons, Petitioner has not provided sufficient information showing that Brandt-1996 discloses, explicitly or inherently, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope,” as required by the challenged claims. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to anticipation by Brandt-1996. D.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Finally, Petitioner argues Brandt-1996 shows that whole ESAT-6 protein is immunogenic, which inherently discloses an immunogenic amount of subfragments containing CD8+ epitopes because ESAT-6 protein necessarily is processed into subfragments. Pet. 24. As Patent Owner argues, however, the record indicates that exposure to ESAT-6 protein does not necessarily produce a CD8+ response, particularly when a non-viral vector is used. See Prelim. Resp. 55–57. For example, Bennekov-2006 (cited by Petitioner as disclosing murine CD8+ epitopes) reports a response from CD8+ T cells of mice exposed to ESAT-6 protein via an adenovirus vector, but no significant CD8+ response when a liposome vector was used. See Ex. 1008, 3348, Fig. 2. It is undisputed that the Brandt-1996 study did not use a viral vector. Despite citing Bennekov-2006 to support its inherency arguments, Petitioner does not address or explain these aspects of Bennekov-2006, or their bearing on the disclosures of Brandt-1996. For the above reasons, Petitioner has not provided sufficient information showing that Brandt-1996 discloses, explicitly or inherently, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope,” as required by the challenged claims. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to anticipation by Brandt-1996. D.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,617,821
• Shenzhen Liown Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2017 · IPR2015-01658 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7, 13, 14, 18–20, 22, and 26 are unpatentable on at least one ground; Sandell anticipation of claims 1–3 and Sandell-Hall obviousness of claim 7 were not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find these “definitions” to be substantially similar. For example, both require at least a mechanical engineering degree and experience varying between “some,” in Dr. Brown’s opinion, and “one to three years,” in Dr. Delson’s opinion. Given this apparent lack of disagreement, we adopt 7 U.S. Patent No. 782,156, issued Feb. 7, 1905 (Ex. 1009) (“Meeker”). 8 U.S. Patent No. 4,551,794, issued Nov. 5, 1985 (Ex. 1010) (“Sandell”). 9 U.S. Patent No. 1,842,167, issued Jan. 19, 1932 (Ex. 1011) (“Hall”). Dr. Delson’s statement of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision, but we note that our analysis would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “1. “flame silhouette element” In the Decision to Institute, we construed the term “flame silhouette element,” recited in at least claims 1 and 26, as “a body of material having a shape that is suitable to generate a flame flickering effect.” Inst. Dec. 9. In their respective Response and Reply, neither party disputes the preliminary construction of this term. Accordingly, we see no reason to change our construction, which we based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the Specification.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer foundPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that the Federal Circuit’s statement of the disclaimer of “non-chaotic pivoting” and devices “driven by rhythmic and metronomic patterns,” Luminara, 814 F.3d at 1353–54, is sufficiently specific to determine the scope of the term “pivot” in claim 1 and “pivotally supported” in claim 13.13 Accordingly, we apply the Federal Circuit’s construction that the plain and ordinary meaning of “pivot” and “pivotally supported” applies, 13 We have also considered Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations (Paper 37), which are substantially directed at obtaining admissions from Petitioner’s declarant in support of its proposed construction of chaotic pivoting (or that Schnuckle ’455 does not disclose chaotic pivoting based on this construction). See id. at 6–13. Although we have considered Patent Owner’s observations, we do not find them persuasive for the reasons explained herein. except that non-chaotic pivoting and devices driven by rhythmic and metronomic patterns are disclaimed.” slip op. at 17

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

    “consider whether Schnuckle ’455 sufficiently discloses the pivot (or pivotally supported) limitation given the disclaimer of non-chaotic pivoting and devices driven by rhythmic and metronomic patterns. As noted above, the Federal Circuit specifically determined, at least as a preliminary matter, that Schnuckle ’455 seemed to meet this claim requirement with its discussion of a two-axis gimbal articulated by “chaotic forces” that can articulate the flame element to “randomly simulate blowing in the wind. ’455 patent, col. 6, ll. 53–62.” Luminara, 814 F.3d at 1354. We agree with the Federal Circuit’s preliminary determination. Although Patent Owner observes that “‘chaotic’ describes the ‘external or internal force’––i.e., the force entering the system, not the resulting motion” (PO Resp. 20–21), Patent Owner does not address the fact that this driving force is coupled to resulting motion “simulating blowing in the wind” (Ex. 1003, 6:62) and “provid[ing] a realistic flame effect” (id. at 1:54–58). As such, we agree that this excerpt of Schnuckle ’455 satisfies the chaotic pivoting requirement and is not driven by a “rhythmic or metronomic” driving force. Pet. Reply 4 n.1. Petitioner also cites the discussion of “programmable movement patterns” as additional evidence of this fact. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 5:52–67 (“The desired movement pattern of the flame shaped surface 326 may be encoded and stored in the memory module 408 of the control board 302 in the form of digital data or control signals.”)). We agree that the column 5 description in Schnuckle ’455 of programmable movement patterns, when viewed against column 6’s description relied upon by the Federal Circuit (Ex. 1003, 6:53–62), suggests the programmed pattern is not rhythmic or metronomic but natural and chaotic.14 Accordingly, we find that Schnuckle ’455 discloses chaotic pivoting as required by claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has satisfied its burden of proving anticipation based on Schnuckle ’455 against claims 1 and 13 by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,696,166 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,696,166
• Shenzhen Liown Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01656 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 5 are anticipated by Schnuckle ’455, and claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Schnuckle ’455.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “30, 2013) (Paper 26) (precedential as to Section III.A) squarely address Patent Owner’s argument. In LG, the Board determined that a proceeding was time-barred even though the prior case (in which a complaint was served more than one year prior to the Petition) was dismissed with prejudice in part and without prejudice in part. Id. at 6. Because even a partial dismissal with prejudice did not leave the parties in the position that they would have been in had the prior complaint never been brought, the Board found the exception to § 315(b) for prior complaints dismissed without prejudice did not apply. Id. In Oracle, by contrast, the facts are similar to those alleged here. Specifically, a petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent more than one year before the petition the proceeding was filed. Id. at 15. That suit was dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 16–17. Applying the Federal Circuit decisions in Graves and Bonneville, the Board determined that “the dismissal of the infringement suit . . . nullifies the effect of the service of the complaint and, as a consequence, does not bar [Petitioner] or any of the other Petitioners from pursuing an inter partes review.” Id. at 17. As with Oracle, Patent Owner here concedes the 2012 case was dismissed without prejudice and does not allege any circumstances that would tend to show the parties are not in the position they were in had the complaint never been served. Accordingly, we find Oracle is controlling under the circumstances alleged in this proceeding.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find these “definitions” to be substantially similar. For example, both require at least a mechanical engineering degree and experience varying between “some,” in Dr. Brown’s opinion, and “one to three years,” in Dr. Delson’s opinion. Given this apparent lack of disagreement, we adopt Dr. Delson’s statement of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision, but we note that our analysis would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “based interpretation of the disclaimer addressed by the Federal Circuit, we also consider whether Patent Owner’s construction of “pivotally mounted” (i.e., requiring three, independent, non-linear types of motions that must not be controlled or modulated) is appropriate. See PO Resp. 12–13. We conclude it is not. Though preliminary, the Federal Circuit specifically rejected this reading both before and after determining that non-chaotic pivoting is disclaimed. Luminara, 814 F.3d at 1352–53 (rejecting the district court’s construction that “free to pivot” requires “movement that is more than rotation around two axes”; “Pivoting includes rotation around a single axis.”), 1354 (finding that “[t]he [Schnuckle] ’455 patent undisputedly teaches pivoting in two axes” and the “final limitation in claim 1 of the ’166 patent—chaotic movement—seems to be met . . . in the prior art [Schnuckle] ’455 patent.”). We agree with the Federal Circuit’s analysis, because it is consistent with the intrinsic evidence. Conversely, Patent Owner’s proposed construction contradicts the intrinsic evidence in other respects. For example, claim 17 has a limitation directed to both pivoting (i.e. “allowing the pendulum to pivot about the hole on the support wire”) and “chaotic motion at the coupling member in at least two dimensions.” Ex. 1001, 23:28–30 (emphasis added). By requiring chaotic motion in at least two dimensions (as on a single-axis), the claims suggest chaotic motion nominally includes motion in even one dimension, as in up or down or side to side. On the other hand, interpreting the specification disclaimer of “chaotic pivoting” for purposes of claim 1 to require three, independent nonlinear types of motion, as Patent Owner argues, would lead to the incompatible result that claim 17, which requires movement in only two dimensions, would cover devices that are disclaimed by the specification.” slip op. at 17

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

    “consider whether Schnuckle ’455 sufficiently discloses the pivotally mounted limitation given the disclaimer of non-chaotic pivoting and devices driven by rhythmic and metronomic patterns. As noted above, the Federal Circuit specifically determined, at least as a preliminary matter, that Schnuckle ’455 seemed to meet this claim requirement with its discussion of a two-axis gimbal articulated by “chaotic forces” that can articulate the flame element to “randomly simulat[e] blowing in the wind. ’455 patent, col. 6, ll. 53–62.” Luminara, 814 F.3d at 1354. We agree with the Federal Circuit’s preliminary determination. Petitioner, relying on Dr. Delson’s testimony, also states the disclosure of driving with “natural and chaotic forces” “simulating blowing in the wind” is not a “rhythmic or metronomic” driving force in accordance with the disclaimer. Pet. Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 19–27). Petitioner cites the discussion of “programmable movement patterns” as additional evidence of this fact. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 5:52–67 (“The desired movement pattern of the flame shaped surface 326 may be encoded and stored in the memory module 408 of the control board 302 in the form of digital data or control signals.”); Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 25–26 (explaining that exciting electromagnets according to digital data can produce chaotic motion)). Patent Owner interprets this excerpt differently, arguing that because “the movement pattern of the flame shaped surface 326 may be encoded and stored in the memory module 408 of the control board 302 in the form of digital data or control signals,” Schnuckle ’455 admits the gimbal of Figure 7 does not move naturally. PO Resp. 21 (quoting Ex. 1003, 5:53–56; Ex. 2010 ¶ 141). We disagree. Nothing in the column 5 excerpt of Schnuckle ’455 suggests memory is programmed with rhythmic or metronomic patterns. Rather, column 5 explains how the electromagnets 316 are excited according to the data programmed into the memory module. See Ex. 1003, 5:54–63. This column 5 description is informed by column 6’s explanation that magnetism articulates the light pipe (i.e., pendulum) with a “natural and chaotic external . . . force (such as . . . magnetism)” resulting in “simulating blowing in the wind.” See id. at 6:56–63. From these descriptions, the programmed pattern is not rhythmic or metronomic, but is natural and chaotic. We, therefore, find the column 5 description consistent with the column 6 description relied upon by the Federal Circuit (Ex. 1003, 6:53–62).5 This is consistent with Dr. Delson’s testimony (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 57–58; Ex. 1019 ¶ 26), which we credit. Accordingly, we find Schnuckle ’455 discloses chaotic pivoting.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,070,319 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,070,319
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Imperium (IP) HoldingsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2015-01233 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 10 are unpatentable: claim 1 is anticipated by Roe and Toshiba, and claim 10 is obvious over Umeda or Sears combined with either Roe or Toshiba.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments, we agree with Samsung that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “interface” in light of the specification of the ’290 patent is “a connection used for communicating signals between two or more electrical components,” and we expressly decline to read into claims 1 and 10 requirements that the recited interfaces (1) must perform a data interfacing function “in accordance with a protocol that is recognized and implemented by both the transmitting device and the receiving device” and (2) necessarily must be “higher-level circuits,” as Imperium suggests. Id. at 2, 6–8; PO Resp. 12–13; see Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 950 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“It is improper for a court to add ‘extraneous’ limitations to a claim, that is, limitations added ‘wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.’” (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988))).” slip op. at 14

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

    “We are persuaded by Samsung’s arguments and evidence presented in the Petition that Roe’s dual-purpose I/O circuit discloses the “data interface circuit” of claim 1 of the ’290 patent, including single-ended and differential interfaces with selectable outputs arranged as set forth in claim 1, and neither Imperium’s arguments nor its cited evidence persuade us otherwise. See Pet. 17–25; PO Resp. 16–22. As stated in Section II.A.2 supra, we agree with Samsung that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “interface,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’290 patent, is “a connection used for communicating signals between two or more electrical components,” and we do not read into claim 1 any requirement that the recited interfaces must be a “higher-level circuit” that performs a data interfacing function in accordance with any particular protocol. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Imperium’s arguments or Dr. Wright’s testimony that Roe’s I/O circuits are not “interfaces” within the meaning of claim 1. PO Resp. 16–20. We also agree with Samsung that claim 1 does not require sending the selected mode to a downstream receiver. Pet. Reply 12. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Imperium’s argument that Roe does not describe “sending selection signals to any components on the downstream/receive-side of the output lines.” PO Resp. 21. Additionally, because we understand Samsung to rely on Roe’s “dual-purpose I/O circuit” to disclose the claimed “data interface circuit” (see Pet. Reply 12), we are not persuaded by Imperium’s argument that Roe’s “primary interface itself” does not have selectable single-ended and differential components (PO Resp. 21). c. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Samsung has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by Roe.” slip op. at 21

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

    “ordinary skill in the art, adopted in Section II.C.3.b supra, as well as the testimony of both Dr. Wright (Ex. 1040; Ex. 1046; Ex. 2008) and Dr. Baker (Ex. 1008; Ex. 1041; Ex. 2007), we are persuaded by Samsung’s arguments and evidence that it would have been within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a dual interface as taught by either Roe or Toshiba into Umeda’s image sensor. We also agree with Samsung that Umeda, Roe, and Toshiba are analogous art with respect to claim 10 of the ’290 patent. See Pet. Reply 17–18; PO Resp. 29. As Samsung points out (Pet. Reply 17), the question of whether prior art references are “analogous” is evaluated with respect to the claimed invention, not with respect to other references. See, e.g., Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A reference qualifies as prior art for a determination under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention.”). A prior art reference is considered to be analogous to a claimed invention if it is either: (1) from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned, regardless of the field of endeavor. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, we determine that Umeda is analogous art with respect to claim 10 under at least the first prong of Bigio, and that Roe and Toshiba are both analogous art under at least the second prong. In particular, Umeda generally describes solid state image sensors, including CMOS-type image sensors, that include a data interface circuit and an image processor connected to the image sensor to receive the signals output by the data interface circuit (see supra Section II.C.3.a and citations therein), which are within the same field of endeavor as the CMOS imaging apparatus of claim 10. Moreover, because each of Roe and Toshiba discloses an interface that provides selectable single-ended and differential signal output with reuse of output pins, we find that those references clearly are pertinent to the problem set forth in the ’290 patent, namely fulfilling a “need for an improved interface circuit that would allow either a single-ended or a differential output and using as few pins as possible” (Ex. 1001, 3:17–19; see also id. at 1:11–15 (“The field of the invention relates generally to the field of interface circuits, and more particularly, to interface circuitry for providing selectable single-ended and differential signal output from a CMOS image sensor to an external digital signal processor.”)).” slip op. at 37

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

    “We are persuaded, moreover, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason in view of Umeda’s teachings, as cited by Samsung, to make the proffered combinations. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, 1:61–67 (stating the goal of “mak[ing] the most of the[] characteristic features” of a MOS type image sensor and the importance of using “an appropriate interface” to avoid increases in chip area, package size, and cost), Fig. 14 (listing both single-ended (“PC Card”) and differential (“IEEE 1394”) interface types). We conclude that the recited combination of claim 10 is no more than “the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established function,” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to combine those elements in the claimed fashion. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 418. We, accordingly, are persuaded that Samsung has shown that the first three Graham factors weigh in favor of finding that Umeda in combination with either Roe or Toshiba would have rendered the subject matter of claim 10 of the ’290 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 6,836,290 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,836,290
• Arris International PLC / Pace Ltd. et al. v. Sony CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 7, 2016 · IPR2016-00828 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 2 was unpatentable under any of the four asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “only if “the information presented in the [P]etition . . . and any [Preliminary Response] . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the [P]etitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the [P]etition.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). For the reasons given below, on this record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim of the ’295 patent. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’295 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner fails to acknowledge that Allport already provides a different solution to the problem identified by Petitioner—of channel retention in the event of a power interruption—by storing the channel information in the remote control. In other words, Allport already addresses the alleged problem/need that Petitioner asserts would provide a motivating reason to seek a solution, and Allport also provides a workable solution by maintaining the channel information in the memory of the remote control. Petitioner does not allege any deficiency of Allport’s remote control-side arrangement such that modifying it as proposed would result in some type of benefit.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “last channel, his testimony is the only evidence as to why one of ordinary skill in the art allegedly would have incorporated the feature in the base station and not the remote control. In short, he opines that it would be “simpler” because the base station manages the tuning and selection features, and could therefore respond quickly. See id. One significant problem we have with Dr. Russ’s testimony is that he—like Petitioner—fails to acknowledge that Allport’s remote control already stores channel tuning information. In other words, if we were starting from a blank slate (i.e., if Allport had not specified where channel tuning information is stored), Dr. Russ’s testimony might hold more weight—although we would still have the potential problem, identified below, regarding exactly why such incorporation would be simpler—but, as noted above, we are not starting from a blank slate because Allport already stores channel information in its remote control. Thus, we give Dr. Russ’s testimony on this point very little weight. Additionally, as noted above, Dr. Russ fails to explain why storing the last channel would have been simpler in the device responsible for the tuning and selection features (i.e., Allport’s base station) than in Allport’s remote control. In other words, a user would presumably enter the channel information on the remote control and it too would have a direct role in channel selection. Thus, even if we were starting from a blank slate, Dr. Russ’s statement that it would be simpler to incorporate said feature in Allport’s base station is unsupported by sufficient explanation or evidence.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Margulis does not explicitly disclose that subsystem processor 518 “selects said television signal or said Internet data to produce said information signal,” as recited by claim 2. See id. at 13. In describing Figure 1, Margulis states: “Switcher 138 then preferably selects one or more of the program sources 112 as a switcher output program in response to control information typically provided by a viewer of the system 110.” Ex. 1009, 4:58–61. Margulis’s Figure 1 illustrates switcher 138 as a separate and distinct component from base station 156. Margulis, Fig. 1. Margulis’s Figures 5 and 6, the description of which Petitioner relies upon (see Pet. 27–28), specifically point back to base station 156 of Figure 1. See Ex. 1009, 7:5–7 (“Referring now to FIG. 5, a block diagram of the FIG. 1 wireless base station 156 is shown . . . . In the FIG. 5 embodiment, wireless base station 156 preferably includes, but is not limited to, a base station subsystem 1 (512(a)) through a base station subsystem N (512(c)[)] . . . .”); id. at 9:1–3 (“Referring now to FIG. 6, a block diagram of an exemplary base station subsystem 512 is shown . . . .”). In short, it appears that Margulis describes the elements of Figures 5 and 6 as though they are a part of the overall system shown in Figure 1. Margulis’s use of the same reference numeral for the base station—156—in Figures 1 and 5 and same reference numeral for the base station subsystem—512—in Figures 5 and 6, support the same conclusion. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(4) (“The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.”). Additionally, and notably, Petitioner does not argue that Figures 5 and 6 illustrate something other than additional details regarding the overall system shown in Figure 1. And, as discussed above, Petitioner’s citations to subsystem processor 518 do not state explicitly that subsystem processor 518 performs the functions attributed to switcher 138 or as required of the selection unit recited in claim 2 of the ’295 patent. Accordingly, we determine that, based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claim 2 as obvious over the combination of Margulis and Zato.” slip op. at 23

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,733,295
• Qualcomm Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-01580 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 6, 8, 17, 18, and 20 are unpatentable; claims 7 and 19 were not shown unpatentable because Cuffaro does not disclose a specified number of votes and the obviousness testimony was insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “After institution, Qualcomm Inc. filed substantially the same petition in IPR2015-01580 (IPR2015-01580, Paper 1), together with a Motion for Joinder of IPR2015-01580 with the instant proceeding (IPR2015-01580, Paper 2). On September 17, 2015, we granted a motion to terminate this proceeding with respect to MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc., but not as to Patent Owner, leaving only Patent Owner as a party to the proceeding. Paper 22. On November 16, 2015, we granted Qualcomm Inc.’s Motion for Joinder, joining Qualcomm Inc. to the instant proceeding. Paper 23. Qualcomm Inc. (“Petitioner”) is now the sole petitioner.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “phrase “means for . . . .” Petitioner construes these terms in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, identifying an algorithm described in the specification corresponding to each “means” limitation. Pet. 7–9 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 8, l. 8–38, col. 8, ll. 49–col. 9, l. 16, col. 19, l. 25–col. 20, l. 67). Petitioner identifies a general purpose computer, processor 704 in Figure 7, as structure for “executing the instructions associated with the corresponding function” recited in each “means limitation,” except for the “means fro [sic] the first participant to communicate . . .” recited in claims 5 and 20. Pet. 7–9 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 7, col. 25, ll. 13–18). For the “means fro [sic] the first participant to communicate” limitation, Petitioner identifies transceiver 216, shown in Figure 2, reproduced supra. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 2, col. 9, ll. 54–59). Patent Owner does not contest these identifications. We agree with Petitioner’s identifications and adopt them as our constructions of the means-plus-function limitations. Specifically, as to those means-plus-function limitations that correspond to processor 704 in Figure 7, Petitioner identifies in its claim chart the algorithm described in the specification for performing each function of these means. Pet. 8–9; See also Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“When dealing with a ‘special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation,’ [the Federal Circuit] require[s] the specification to disclose the algorithm for performing the function.”); Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]hen a computer is referenced as support for a function in a means-plus-function claim, there must be some explanation of how the computer performs the claimed function.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are not persuaded by this reasoning. As Petitioner observes, the embodiments of the ’624 patent identified by Patent Owner are characterized as “examples,” and a person of ordinary skill “would understand that the example scenarios of the specification are not necessarily limiting on the claims.” Reply 3 (citing Ding Supp. Decl. ¶ 6). In addition, Petitioner notes that claim language in related patents owned by Patent Owner explicitly refers to participants, evidencing Patent Owner’s understanding “how to expressly create participant-specific voting requirements in claims.” Id. at 3. At the oral hearing, Patent Owner suggested that explicit reference to participants in such other claim language “was because it wanted to clarify that each participant got a single vote,” and explained its position that, in the claims at issue in this proceeding, “participant is implicit in the claim language as it is.” Tr. 78:16–25. But the claims are directed to a “communications apparatus,” and recite “votes” in the context of what the “particular communications channel” “receives.” Nothing within the structure of the claims requires resolving the origin of such votes. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the construction it agreed to before the district court in the Qualcomm Litigation. In that litigation, the parties agreed that the term “vote” should be construed as “a binary expression (to use or not to use),” a construction that makes no reference to the origin of the “vote” as from a participant or otherwise. Ex. 1014, 6. We see no compelling reason to excuse the inconsistency by adopting a narrower construction when the Board applies a claim-construction standard (broadest reasonable interpretation) that could only result in the same or a broader construction. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A patent may not, like a ‘nose of wax,’ be twisted one way to avoid anticipation and another to find infringement.” (quoting Sterner Lighting, Inc. v. Allied Elec. Supply, Inc., 431 F.2d 539, 544 (5th Cir. 1970))). Accordingly, we construe “votes to use a particular communications channel” as “expressions of preference for using the particular communications channel.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner responds that “the Gerten device is not capable of and expressly teaches away from performing this functionality.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Melendez Decl. ¶ 33). Patent Owner contends that “Gerten’s disclosure is directed toward eliminating channels for use in an entire piconet as opposed to eliminating channels for use by certain participants within a piconet.” Id. at 16 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that Gerten does not disclose a selection kernel capable of maintaining synchronization between a master and more than one slave in a piconet, with the master and one slave using a default set of channels while the same master and a different slave use a different set of channels. Id. We are not persuaded that the absence of a specific teaching of such a selection kernel supports the conclusion that one of skill in the art would understand Gerten to function in the manner Patent Owner suggests. In this instance, Petitioner refers to two embodiments of Gerten “in which a first participant communicates with a second participant via a normal sequence and with another participant via an adaptive hopping sequence.” Reply 5. First, Figure 3 of Gerten is reproduced below. Figure 3 illustrates “methodology for determining and communicating channels to be avoided to a remote device.” Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 4–6. As illustrated in the drawing, a master unit performs a discovery process (block 110) upon connecting with a new slave unit. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 60, 64. If the slave unit is capable of using interference avoidance, the master unit begins the process of determining a modified set of channels for use (block 120). Id. ¶ 45. If a second slave unable to use interference avoidance enters the piconet, standard frequency hopping is used. Supp. Ding Decl. ¶ 9. Under Patent Owner’s characterization of Gerten, entry of the second slave into the network would require the first slave necessarily to revert back to the default hopping sequence. Id. ¶ 10. But this would undermine the stated benefits of Gerten, which explicitly discloses: The above process can be applied to a Bluetooth example and includes identification of a Bluetooth device’s ability to support interference avoidance, the measurements of signal strength on all channels and identification of which channel should not be used without violating the FCC rules, a method of modifying the Bluetooth hop sequence so that it will avoid channels containing strong or fixed interferers while still supporting standard Bluetooth hopping with other non-enabled members of the piconet and a method of relating necessary interference avoidance information to the remote Bluetooth devices. Ex. 1003, col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 9 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,477,624 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,477,624
• Qualcomm Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-01581 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9, 10, 12, 21, 22, and 24 are unpatentable; claims 11 and 23 are not shown unpatentable because Cuffaro does not establish the specified vote threshold.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “hopping sequence” Each of challenged claims 9, 10, 22, and 24 recites a “hopping sequence.” Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding, attests that the phrase is “a well-understood term of art.” Ding Decl. ¶ 35 (citing Ex. 1016, 127–33). Consistent with Dr. Ding’s testimony, we applied a preliminary construction of “hopping sequence” in the Institution Decision as “the order in which the communications network hops among the set of frequencies.” Dec. 7. That construction is not contested by Patent Owner, and we adopt it for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Furthermore, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the construction it agreed to before the district court in the Qualcomm Litigation. In that litigation, the parties agreed that the term “vote” should be construed as “a binary expression (to use or not to use),” a construction that makes no reference to the origin of the “vote” as from a participant or otherwise. Ex. 1018, 6. We see no compelling reason to excuse the inconsistency by adopting a narrower construction when the Board applies a claim-construction standard (broadest reasonable interpretation) that could only result in the same or a broader construction. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A patent may not, like a ‘nose of wax,’ be twisted one way to avoid anticipation and another to find infringement.” (quoting Sterner Lighting, Inc. v. Allied Elec. Supply, Inc., 431 F.2d 539, 544 (5th Cir. 1970))). Accordingly, we construe “votes to use a particular communications channel” as “expressions of preference for using the particular communications channel.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “In addressing independent claim 9’s specific requirement that different sets of channels be used with the second and third communications devices, Petitioner reasons that the process summarized above may be applied by the master device to each of the slave devices separately: “the master device of Gerten performs a service discovery request to determine if each slave device has interference avoidance capabilities.” Id. at 19 (emphasis added) (citing Ding Decl. ¶ 53; Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 38–51). Thus, Petitioner argues, if one slave has such interference avoidance capabilities, communications with that slave may take place using a modified frequency hopping scheme; if another (legacy) slave lacks such interference avoidance capabilities, communications take place using a normal mode with default communications channels that are not changed based on channel performance. Id. (citing Ding Decl. ¶ 54); see id. at 17–18. Thus, Petitioner concludes, the recited communications with the third communications device over default communications channels occur “while” communicating with the second communications device over the first and second sets of communications channels, as we have construed the term “while.” Petitioner supports this reasoning with testimony by Dr. Ding, which we credit. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ding Decl. ¶¶ 52–54). Patent Owner responds that “the Gerten device is not capable of and expressly teaches away from performing this functionality.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Melendez Decl. ¶ 32). Patent Owner contends that “Gerten’s disclosure is directed toward eliminating channels for use in an entire piconet as opposed to eliminating channels for use by certain participants within a piconet.” Id. (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that Gerten does not disclose a selection kernel capable of maintaining synchronization between a master and more than one slave in a piconet, with the master and one slave using a default set of channels while the same master and a different slave use a different set of channels. Id. We are not persuaded that the absence of a specific teaching of such a selection kernel supports the conclusion that one of skill in the art would understand Gerten to function in the manner Patent Owner suggests. In this instance, Petitioner refers to two embodiments of Gerten “in which a first participant communicates with a second participant via a normal sequence and with another participant via an adaptive hopping sequence.” Reply 5. First, Figure 3 of Gerten is reproduced below. Figure 3 illustrates “methodology for determining and communicating channels to be avoided to a remote device.” Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 4–6. As illustrated in the drawing, a master unit performs a discovery process (block 110) upon connecting with a new slave unit. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 58, 61. If the slave unit is capable of using interference avoidance, the master unit begins the process of determining a modified set of channels for use (block 120). Id. ¶ 46. If a second slave unable to use interference avoidance enters the piconet, standard frequency hopping is used. Supp. Ding Decl. ¶ 9. Under Patent Owner’s characterization of Gerten, entry of the second slave into the network would require the first slave necessarily to revert back” slip op. at 15

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

    “base station. Ex. 1004, col. 7, ll. 23–47. Because Cuffaro does not limit the type of communications link used for such reporting, Petitioner reasons, and we agree, that “one skilled in the art would consider it obvious for the slave device in Gerten to perform the interference signal strength measurements” and to communicate channel performance data measured by the slave device over one or more of the plurality of communications channels based on the hopping sequence. Pet. 29. Petitioner supports this reasoning with declaration testimony by Dr. Ding. Ding Decl. ¶ 100. Petitioner further provides persuasive reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the relevant teachings of Gerten and Cuffaro, including that “Cuffaro and Gerten are in the same field of endeavor” of selecting channels to avoid interference in a communications system; that measuring interference signal strength at a slave device such as described by Cuffaro provides a more accurate determination of the impact of the receiver unit from the interference on a given channel, and, therefore, would provide more accurate identification of bad channels in Gerten; and that Gerten suggests such a modification by describing that both a master and a slave can participate in identifying channels to avoid. Pet. 29–31. Petitioner supports this reasoning with declaration testimony by Dr. Ding. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 101, 102. Patent Owner responds by observing that, unlike Gerten, “Cuffaro does not relate to communications systems wherein the devices that are communicating with each other . . . are even transmitting or receiving on the same channels.” PO Resp. 21. Instead, the cellular telephone systems described by Cuffaro use separate physical channels for uplink and downlink. Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 9–11. Patent Owner contends that, in Cuffaro, performance data cannot be sent back on the same set of channels on which they were received, and, therefore “[a] mobile station of Cuffaro cannot transmit channel performance data ‘over one or more of the plurality of communications channels.’” PO Resp. 21–22. Dr. Melendez agrees. Melendez Decl. ¶¶ 41–43. Even accepting that Patent Owner’s contention regarding Cuffaro is factually accurate does not lead to the conclusion that Petitioner’s reasoning regarding the combination of Gerten and Cuffaro is deficient. Petitioner does not propose simply to incorporate the performance-data communication mechanism of Cuffaro into the system of Gerten. Rather, Petitioner relies on Cuffaro’s teaching of communicating performance data between devices, and applying that teaching to the system described by Gerten. See Reply 9– 10. That Cuffaro incidentally uses different frequencies for uplink and downlink communications does not diminish the relevance of the teaching identified by Petitioner.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,477,624 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,477,624

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.