• Meta Platforms, Inc. / Instagram, Inc. et al. v. VL Collective IP LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00924 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Zhao; claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 are not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “Decision is a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 as to the patentability of claims 1–16 of the ’980 patent. We determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–15 are unpatentable, and Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “being present in another image or comparing that probability to a detection threshold.”). Dr. Saber was consistent with this testimony on cross-examination. Ex. 1051, 167–251. When I weigh the evidence, I find it to be one-sided, with all of the expert testimony weighing against Petitioner or avoiding the issue altogether. Thus, I would not find that Petitioner has met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Zhao teaches claim limitation 1e. Moreover, even if the Majority is correct about how Zhao’s RCR algorithm works, all that shows is that the detection of object presence in a previous image can be used to disambiguate segments (e.g., limbs) of an already detected object (e.g., a person), not that it can be used to detect the object in the image in the first place, as required by the claim language. For this additional reason, I would not find that Petitioner has met its burden.” slip op. at 84

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “2. Reasons for Obviousness Based on Zhao On a limitation-by-limitation basis, Petitioner’s contentions of” slip op. at 25

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

    “2. Reasons for Obviousness Based on Zhao On a limitation-by-limitation basis, Petitioner’s contentions of “obviousness” are primarily assertions of how a POSITA would have understood Zhao’s disclosures. For example, with regard to claim 1, Petitioner repeatedly asserts how “a POSITA would have understood Zhao” (Pet. 13, 18, 21, 27) and for each limitation contends that Zhao “disclosed or at least rendered obvious” (or a variation thereof) the limitation (id. at 13– 15, 17–18, 21, 23, 25–27). We will, accordingly, address these “obviousness” contentions when addressing the respective limitations.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,436,980 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,436,980
• Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2023-00698 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 7–11, 13, and 19–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for claims 11 and 13.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “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.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We, therefore, institute inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’202 patent and all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The two proposals are materially similar in the education requirement, but differ marginally in professional experience required (three versus five years). See supra. While we are persuaded, on the present record, that both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals are consistent with the problems Petitioner’s proposal is a better reflection of the level of skill in the prior art, and we therefore adopt it for this decision. Our decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12

  • BurdenMixed

    “Figure 6 of Rauhala has been annotated by Patent Owner to show that the parallel connection (outlined in red) including resistors R1, R2. R3 and switches ka, kb is outside the signal path (highlighted in yellow) through differential amplifier 61. Prelim. Resp. 38. Petitioner identifies R1, R2, R3 and switches ka and kb as the claimed variable impedance. See, e.g., Pet. 39–41. The Petition (and the supporting Baker Declaration) do not explain adequately how, under this interpretation by Petitioner and its expert, Rauhala meets the adjusting an impedance “in the signal path” limitation. See Prelim. Resp. 39–41. For the reasons given, therefore, even if we were to disagree with Patent Owner’s construction of “impedance,” we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate sufficiently that Rauhala meets the limitation in claims 7 and 19 requiring “dynamically adjusting one or more of an impedance . . . in the [receiver] signal path.” For the reasons given, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 11 and 13 as anticipated by Rauhala. We further determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 7 and 19 as anticipated by Rauhala.” slip op. at 26

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

    “We disagree. Noting in the language of the claims requires that these method steps be performed by separate components, or that these method steps “provide two different channel indications at once” (Prelim. Resp. 38), only that they be performed as stated in the claim. In that respect, this case is distinguished from In re Robertson, where the Federal Circuit determined that the “third fastening means” required by the claims was not inherently disclosed by the prior art. Robertson, 169 F.3d at 745 (“The [prior art] patent does not expressly include a third fastening means for disposal of the diaper, as claim 76 requires.”). In further contrast to this case, Robertson addressed mechanical elements of a product (fasteners for disposable diaper), not steps in a process. More pertinent to our facts is the Federal Circuit’s decision in Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc, 2017 LLC, No. 2021- 2039, 2022 WL 11531235 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 20, 2022), that addresses steps in a method claim. Reversing the Board’s determination that a petitioner had 6 See Ex. 1001, 14:5–6 (claim 7), 14:41–42 (claim 11), 15:18–19 (claim 13), and 17:28–29 (claim 19). Circuit concluded that the Board had misconstrued the claims to require separate acts: We agree with [petitioner] that the Board misconstrued the claims to require that the comparing and determining step are performed by two separate acts in a certain order. Nothing in the intrinsic record requires such a narrow construction, and neither party presented this construction to the Board. Without any such evidence, we decline to impose such a narrow claim construction. Microsoft Corp., 2022 WL 11531235, at *3 (citation and footnote omitted). We find that at this stage, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that this limitation is met by Rauhala. Pet. 31–33; Baker Decl. ¶¶ 111–114.” slip op. at 22

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,524,202
• Lenovo (United States) Inc. / EMC Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2018 · IPR2017-00477 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Cramer and Banga; claim 9 is also anticipated by Cramer, while anticipation was not shown for claim 1.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “skill in the art should be adopted nor how the different levels affect the parties’ analyses. Although there are slight differences between the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art, the parties agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a four-year technical degree with work experience in computer networks or storage systems. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 26); Ex. 2001 ¶ 18. Both parties also agree that additional education may take the place of educational experience. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 26); Ex. 2001 ¶ 18. Based on the evidence of record, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we adopt Patent Owner’s level of ordinary skill in the art, specifically that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent, with two to three years of work experience in the field of computer networking, storage systems, or a related field.” We agree with both parties that additional education would make up for less professional experience. Ex. 2001 ¶ 18; Ex. 1002 ¶ 26. We note, however, that our analysis would be the same if we adopted either party’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The Decision on Institution addressed the broadest reasonable interpretation of “control portion,” determining that this term “encompasses a portion of an information packet that includes information used to determine how the packet should be routed.” Dec. on Inst. 14. During the trial, Patent Owner stated that it “does not concede the Board’s construction is correct and maintains that a control portion should be construed to mean ‘a contiguous portion of a packet that includes information used to determine how the packet should be routed.’” PO Resp. 8. Patent Owner, however, further states that “the Board does not need to resolve this issue to decide any dispute in this IPR.” PO Resp. 8. Following institution, the parties did not otherwise address claim construction. See PO Resp. 8; Pet. Reply 2. Based on the record developed during trial, we determine that we need not expressly construe any term in the challenged claims to decide the issues of patentability before us.” slip op. at 9

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

    “insufficient to support Petitioner’s assertion of anticipation because Cramer does not describe associating first and second host addresses with a common frame address. PO Resp. 21–25. We agree with Patent Owner. Although Cramer describes a filer with a single network adapter, Cramer never expressly describes associating two host addresses with the MAC address of that adapter. In step 410 of Figure 4 of Cramer, “the IP address for the storage device is mapped to a network interface controller (NIC).” Ex. 1005, 9:44–45 (emphasis added). Cramer discloses repeating the process in Figure 4 for each additional device that needs to be configured (Ex. 1005, 10:4–6, Fig. 4 (step 414), but it does not expressly describe that the next volume’s IP address will be mapped to the same NIC. As Patent Owner correctly points out, “[t]he remainder of Cramer’s discussion and figures do not mention or illustrate a single instance where two IP volumes are assigned to the same NIC and therefore share a common frame address.” PO Resp. 22. For example, referring to Figure 5, Cramer discloses: “Connected to Filer 1 is a volume of disks 510. In this example, Filer 1 includes three separate network interface [controllers] (NICs), namely E0, E1 and E2. Filer 2 has NICs E4A and E4B.” Ex. 1005, 10:15–19. Figure 5, therefore, does not show two volumes whose IP addresses are assigned to the same NIC. We do not find express disclosure in Cramer of this many-toone correspondence of IP addresses to frame address. In its Reply, Petitioner notes Cramer describes that filers can serve 150 or more volumes, and Petitioner argues that “there is no suggestion in Cramer that any filer would have 150 or more NICs.” Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:19–21, 4:47–50); see Ex. 1005, 2:19–21 (“Currently available filer implementations can serve a large number of discrete volumes (150 or more, for example).”). This disclosure may make readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art the desirability of using fewer NICs in such a situation and sharing those NICs among multiple volumes, but this is insufficient for anticipation because Cramer still lacks disclosure of associating two IP addresses with the MAC address of one NIC. See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”). Furthermore, Petitioner does not assert that this feature is inherent in Cramer. See Paper 29, 7 (In response to Patent Owner’s Observation 8, Petitioner states: “Petitioner has not relied upon the inherent teachings of any references.”). Having considered the record developed during trial, we determine Petitioner has not shown Cramer expressly describes “the first and second host addresses . . . are both associated with a common frame address that corresponds to a network interface that communicatively couples the packet processor to a network.”” slip op. at 24

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s position that pointing out similarities in references may not be, by itself, sufficient to support a legal conclusion of obviousness. Rather, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We, however, do not understand Petitioner’s arguments regarding the similarities of Cramer and Banga to be the rationale to combine. Instead, we understand these arguments to be directed to reasonable expectation of success. For example, Petitioner quotes Dr. Karlin’s testimony that “[t]his combination would be straightforward, since Cramer and Banga have similar system designs and would require no more than routine skill in the art because, e.g., the two patents are both NetApp patents, describe similar systems, and are directed to the same person of skill in the art.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 75, quoted in Pet. 60. Petitioner provides separate reasoning to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Banga’s teaching of assigning multiple IP addresses to a common MAC address with the teachings of Cramer. Pet. 59. In particular, Petitioner argues: As explained by Dr. Karlin, “a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Cramer and Banga would be motivated to utilize the common frame address with multiple IP addresses disclosed in Banga with the multiple virtual objects associated with multiple IP addresses disclosed in Cramer. For example, Banga discusses that with a common frame address, ‘the capabilities of the NIC are effectively shared between’ multiple virtual objects and a person of skill in the art would understand the advantages of associating multiple virtual objects with a single NIC having a single MAC, i.e., allowing the capabilities of a single NIC to be ‘effectively shared.’ Banga at 12:1-9.” Pet. 59–60 (quoting Ex. 1002 ¶ 75). Patent Owner argues this is not sufficient articulated reasoning to” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,387,132 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,387,132
• EMC Corporation / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2018 · IPR2017-00374 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, 13, 15, 16, and 18–21 are unpatentable as obvious over OceanStore; anticipation and the OceanStore–Condor combination were not established, nor was claim 17 obvious over OceanStore.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The parties dispute the proper construction of the limitation “[r]epresenting with the corresponding software-based NAS component that the selected distributed devices respectively comprise NAS devices” as recited in claims 1 and 13. See Pet 11–12; PO Resp. 8–11; Reply 3–8. Specifically, the parties proposed the following constructions: Petitioner “using the corresponding software-based NAS components of the selected distributed devices to mimic dedicated NAS devices”” slip op. at 9

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

    “Although we agree with Patent Owner regarding the use of the term “respectively,” we do not understand its use to require “the selected distributed devices to cause each selected distributed device to separately appear to network-connected user devices as a dedicated NAS device.” We cannot construe individual terms in isolation. Rather, we must consider the claim as a whole in view of the specification. Specifically, we must consider the implications of other terms recited in claims 1 and 13 (e.g., “location information”) and how the claims are supported by the disclosed embodiments.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contests Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, specifically arguing that “Petitioners’ proposed requirements, especially with regard to work experience, are higher than can be reasonably supported.” PO Resp. 5–6. Patent Owner notes that Petitioners’ declarant, Dr. Kubiatowicz, testified on cross-examination that “somebody coming directly out of college, likely, would need a couple of extra years to understand this,” and that “a little bit of professional experience might help them -- would help them understand the details involved in this case.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 2002, 25:13–14; 26:2–5). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Shenoy, testified that, at the time “of the ’827 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent, with 1–2 years of work experience in the field of computer networking, storage systems, or a related field.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 19. According to Dr. Shenoy, “[l]ack of experience can be remedied by additional education or vice versa.” Id. Based on our review of the ’827 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’827 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Kubiatowicz and Dr. Shenoy, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, specifically that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent, with 1–2 years of work experience in the field of computer networking, storage systems, or a related field.” We also determine that such a person would have been familiar with computer systems architecture and design, and would have been aware of design trends relating to distributed processing systems.” slip op. at 18

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Based on the record before us, we are not satisfied Petitioner has shown adequately for an anticipation challenge that OceanStore discloses “wherein the respective client agents for particular distributed devices of the plurality of distributed devices have corresponding software-based network attached storage (NAS) components configured to assess unused or under-utilized storage resources in selected distributed devices of the plurality of distributed devices” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 13. Although it appears OceanStore discloses distributed routing in order to find and fulfill a request for an entity with a GUID (global unique identifier) (see Ex. 1003, 193), there does not appear to be an explicit disclosure that any software-based network attached storage (NAS) component on a distributed device assesses unused or under-utilized storage resources in selected distributed devices. Nor does Petitioner adequately explain how such an assessment would be inherent in the disclosure of OceanStore. We note that Petitioner cites to the prosecution history of the ’827 patent while making arguments regarding claim construction. See Pet. 12 n2. Although the ’827 patent prosecution history states that its “client agent programs must be capable of assessing what capabilities are spare and/or unused (unused or under-utilized)” (Ex. 1015, 8), such a statement by the patent applicant does not relieve Petitioner of its burden to point out where such a feature is found in the prior art reference that forms the basis of its anticipation challenge. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that OceanStore describes this limitation of claims 1 and 13. d. Summary Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that OceanStore describes every limitation of claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 13 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on OceanStore. 3. Analysis of Cited Art as Applied to Dependent Claims 3–9 and 15–21 Petitioner contends dependent claims 3–9 and 15–21 of the ’827 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) in view of OceanStore. Pet. 36–44, 46. For the same reason as discussed above in regard to independent claims 1 and 13 above, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–9 and 15–21 of the ’827 patent are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on OceanStore.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,275,827 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,275,827
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00810 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–7 are unpatentable as anticipated by Silberschatz; Petitioner did not show claims 4 and 8 unpatentable because Silberschatz does not disclose allocating or de-allocating a specific telecommunications resource.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In this case, the ’637 patent discloses multiple embodiments of telephony and telecommunication resources being allocated and de-allocated, but during prosecution, the applicant removed the modifying limitation of “telecommunication”3 leaving only the term “resource” in the issued claims. Compare Ex. 1004, 60–69 (Application No. 09/072,436) with Ex. 1002, 44–47. The claims, thus, recite “resource” and do not recite “telecommunications resource” nor do they recite “computer resource.” The lack of a limiting term modifying “resource” indicates a scope broader than the scope encompassed by a “resource” that is limited to only a “telecommunications resource” or “computer resource.” Moreover, the Examiner characterized the claims of the application that issued as the ’637 patent as “broader in scope than the claims [in] the parent patent.” Ex. 1002, 95. The Applicant did not dispute the Examiner’s characterization of the claims. Id. at 107. Although the ’637 patent discloses embodiments using “resources,” the ’637 patent does not define explicitly the term “resource.” Therefore, we look to the ordinary meaning of the term as would be understood by one of 3 The term “telecommunication” was recited in the proposed claims of earlier-filed parent Application No. 09/072,436. The ’637 patent claims priority to patent Application No. 09/072,436. See Ex. 1002, 1. ordinary skill in the art. A technical dictionary, IEEE Dictionary4, defines “resource” as “[a]ny capability that must be scheduled, assigned, or controlled by the underlying implementation to assure non[-]conflicting usage by processes.” Id. at 976. As shown by the dictionary definition, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “resource” is not limited to a telecommunications resource or a computer resource.5 Thus, the ordinary meaning of “resource” is consistent with the term’s use in the ’637 patent, which readily interchanges the term “resources” with “components” and “capability” in the context of computer telephony resources. Ex. 1001, 1:27–29. For example, in one embodiment in the ’637 patent, the telecommunication “resource” is a telephony line card that is coupled to a telephone. Id. at 9:12–15. In other embodiments, the telecommunication “resources” are components or ports coupled via a data bus to a central processing unit system, a data port system, a video system, a network system, a storage controller, and a high speed communication system. Id. at 8:1–27, 10:64–11:10, 11:14–22. In every embodiment in the ’637 patent, 4 IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms: Seventh Edition (Standards Information Network, IEEE Press ©2000) (Ex. 3001) (hereinafter “IEEE Dictionary”). 5 Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Forys, testified on cross-examination that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have telecommunications experience because all of the embodiments in the ’637 patent are directed to telecommunications. Ex. 2002, 47:2–14. Based on this testimony, Patent Owner argues that the ’637 patent would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of a telecommunications systems. PO Resp. 8–9. We agree the ’637 patent may have been understood in the context of a telecommunications system, however, that does not indicate that a skilled artisan would have understood “resource” to have been limited to only a telecommunications resource. resources are a component or capability of a system that is managed (i.e., identified, allocated, de-allocated) by some module in the service kernel. Id. at 9:27–39, 10:10–14, 10:64–11:10, 11:14–22. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s position, because” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Forys, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’637 patent “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field and one year to two years of industry experience in telecommunications.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 32. Patent Owner does not disagree with Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of skill in the art, nor does Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Akl, offer any contrary explanation regarding who would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’637 patent. PO Resp. 9–10; Ex. 2003 ¶ 42. Based on our review of the ’637 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’637 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a similar discipline, and at least one year of work experience in telecommunications technologies. We further note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “We do agree with Patent Owner’s argument, however, with regards to dependent claims 4 and 8, which require the return of “the allocated telecommunications resources to control of the management module.” Ex. 1001, 21:52–22:6, 22:44–52; see supra, Section II.A.3. Petitioner has not indicated a disclosure in Silberschatz that demonstrates the allocation or de-allocation of a specific telecommunications resource. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show Silberschatz anticipates dependent claims 4 and 8.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner’s position, because Petitioner identifies CPU time as a specific resource that is requested (Pet. 23–24), allocated (id. at 25), used (id. at 25), and de-allocated (id. at 26). We credit the testimony of Dr. Forys, who explains how and where Silberschatz discloses each element of the challenged claims. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–80. Specifically, Dr. Forys testifies regarding the request, allocation, use, and de-allocation of a single type of resource (e.g., CPU time), thereby meeting the limitations of the challenged claims. Id. ¶¶ 74–80. Although Patent Owner correctly points out that Petitioner discusses multiple types of resources, we do not agree that Petitioner discusses or applies the disclosure of Silberschatz inconsistently, because Petitioner at least consistently identifies CPU time as a resource requested, allocated, used, and de-allocated.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,324,637 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,324,637
• Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00034 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as anticipated by Paul; the Board rejected the Ratsimor anticipation and obviousness grounds because Ratsimor was not proven publicly accessible.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “subsidy” Independent claim 1 recites “recognizing a subsidy, according to the subsidy program, for the subscriber.” The ’670 patent does not set forth a special definition for “subsidy.” Accordingly, we look to the ordinary meaning of the term “subsidy”—financial assistance given by one to another.5 The ’670 patent’s use of “subsidy” is consistent with its ordinary meaning. Specifically, the ’670 patent describes an advertiser setting up a subsidy program to subsidize communication fees, offer product discounts, generate and accumulate “reward points” for subscribers, or mitigate or defer other expenses of the subscriber. Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 39-45 (referring to Fig. 2). These examples are financial in nature. Product discounts reduce the monetary cost of a financial transaction, reward points are a form of currency, and mitigating or deferring expenses reduces the monetary cost of a financial transaction or postpones the monetary cost of a financial transaction, respectively. Also, the ’670 describes, as part of a subscriber setup process, an intermediary presenting, to a subscriber for selection, “subsidy programs available, including the criteria for continued subsidy and levels of subsidy.” Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 59-65 (referring to Fig. 3); see id. at col. 4, ll. 16-17. In an example of a bi-directional endorsement process, the ’670 patent further describes an advertiser calculating the amount to” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree the preamble is limiting. In general, a preamble is construed as a limitation “if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). When the limitations in the body of the claim “rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.” Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Notably, the preamble of independent claim 1 requires “a source communication device possessed by a subscriber,” “a destination communication device possessed by a recipient,” and “an advertisement.” The body of claim 1 recites “the source communication device,” “the subscriber,” “the destination communication device,” and “the 17 advertisement,” all of which rely on and derive antecedent basis from the preamble of claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude that the preamble of independent claim 1 is entitled to patentable weight.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we do not find sufficient evidence that the Ratsimor paper was accessible publicly and, therefore, we conclude the Ratsimor paper is not a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Section 102 states: “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . (b) the invention was . . . described in a printed publication . . . more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2011). “The statutory phrase ‘printed publication’ has been interpreted to give effect to ongoing advances in the technologies of data storage, retrieval, and dissemination.” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As such, a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) may be an electronic publication, such as the Ratsimor paper is purported to be. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981) (holding that an electronic publication is considered to be a “printed publication” “upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it and recognize and comprehend therefrom the essentials of the claimed invention without need of further research or experimentation”).” slip op. at 22

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

    “as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose more than “multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371; see also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (“The [prior art] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.”). Although the elements must be arranged 30 or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, the prior art reference is read from the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.”); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,457,670 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,457,670
• Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00044 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 4-9 were not shown unpatentable because Ratsimor was not established as prior art; cancellation of claims 1-3 and 10-13 was granted.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We construe the terms “incentive program,” “incentive,” and “incentivizing” in accordance with these principles.” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “C. Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 18) is before us for consideration. In the motion, Patent Owner requests cancellation of claims 1-3 and 10-13 of the ’646 patent. The cancellation of these claims is not based on any contingency. There is no indication, for example, that claims 1-3 and 10-13 should be cancelled only if the claims are determined unpatentable. Rather, the Motion to Amend leaves no doubt that Patent Owner unequivocally requests cancellation of claims 1-3 and 10-13. For these reasons, we grant Patent Owner’s request to cancel claims 1-3 and 10-13 of the ’646 patent. Because Patent Owner requested cancellation of claims 1-3 and 10-13, not based on any contingency, Patent Owner has waived any issues with respect to claims 1-3 and 10-13, and, therefore, we need not address the patentability of those claims.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “prior art printed publication “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it . . . .” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indexing is not “a necessary condition for a reference to be publicly accessible,” but is among many factors that may bear on public accessibility. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 16

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

    “3. The Ratsimor Paper Is Not Prior Art For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Ratsimor paper is a printed publication within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and, therefore, the Ratsimor paper is not prior art to the claims of the ’646 patent. Therefore, Petitioner may not rely upon the Ratsimor paper for its asserted grounds of patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated that (i) claims 4 and 5 would have been obvious over the Ratsimor paper and Paul, (ii) claims 6-8 would have been obvious over the Ratsimor paper, Paul, and Kitaura, or (iii) claim 9 would have been obvious over the Ratsimor paper, Paul, Hall, and MacEachren.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,452,646 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,452,646

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.