• Cook Group Incorporated / Cook Medical LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00440 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–7, 10–16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable; claims 5 and 8 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 21, 30, and 38 are unpatentable as obvious over Sackier and Kirsch.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “3. Dr. Nicosia’s Declaration in support of its Opposition to Patent” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the” slip op. at 16

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

    “B. “clip” The Parties now agree that “clip,” as the term is generally understood,” slip op. at 14

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

    “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). We conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing this element to be present in Sackier because Petitioner combines features from distinct embodiments in Sackier without establishing persuasively that those embodiments are so directly related to each other such that one of ordinary skill in the art, looking at the reference as a whole, would recognize a disclosure of the invention as claimed. Accordingly, although a very close call, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate anticipation of claims 1, 12, and 20 by Sackier for this reason.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,271,731 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,271,731
• Cook Group Incorporated / Cook Medical LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00435 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Malecki; the contingent motion to amend was denied as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction more persuasive because it is grounded in, and most consistent with, the specification of the ’731 patent. Contrastingly, Petitioner does not offer a specific interpretation of “inner walls” and its arguments are generally based on extrinsic evidence, including claim charts from the related district court litigation (Pet. 15), arguments from related proceedings (Pet. Reply 3), and the prior art reference (Malecki) relied on to challenge the claims (id. at 3–4). Petitioner criticizes the Patent Owner’s position but provides no express interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms;” instead, Petitioner argues why Patent Owner’s proposed construction is wrong. Pet. Reply 4–5. Dr. Nicosia does not expressly define or otherwise persuasively explain the definition of “inner walls” in his declarations either. See generally Exs. 1037, 1095, and 1109.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the filing of the application that became the ’731 patent would have possessed the knowledge and skill of an engineer or similar professional 5 The parties have not introduced evidence of secondary considerations in this proceeding. with at least an undergraduate degree in engineering, or a physician having experience with designing medical devices. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1037 ¶ 11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and we adopt it based on the final record before us. It is also consistent with the level of skill evidenced by the references.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the final trial record, including our interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms” to mean “the exterior surfaces of the first and second clip arms that are inward-facing relative to the longitudinal axis of the clip,” Petitioner has not persuasively established that Malecki Embodiment #1 discloses this limitation. We find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Vaitekunas, that “[t]he jaws of Malecki Embodiment #1 have four walls,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand Figure 28A to illustrate links 404, 406 connecting to the side walls of jaws 308C, 310C on the side or lateral wall opposite (or underneath) the one shown in Figure 28A.” Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 66, 68. We agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider side or lateral walls as “inner walls” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. Thus, the portion of the jaw identified by Petitioner as shaded in green (Pet. 26) is a portion of the side/lateral wall, not an inward-facing wall. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 68. Petitioner has also not persuasively established that linkages 404, 406 contact any outside portion of the inner wall. As noted by Patent Owner above, Petitioner’s expert admits that Malecki does not disclose links 404, 406 contacting the radially inward-facing walls. See Ex. 2012 at 274:12–23. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s pin engagement theory. First, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Nicosia persuasively establish that a slot and pin channel (Pet. 15) is used in Malecki Embodiment #1. See Ex. 1095 ¶ 27. As pointed out by Dr. Vaitekunas, Petitioner’s theory that an engagement between a pin and a pin hole satisfies the “engaging the inner walls of the first and second clip arms” limitation is based on structure that is simply not disclosed in Malecki. Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. Further, we agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that “[e]ven if contact does occur between a pin and a pinhole, the contact occurs in the pin hole, not the exterior surface of a radially inward-facing wall.” Id.” slip op. at 25

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

    “Based on the final trial record, including our interpretation of “inner walls of the first and second clip arms” to mean “the exterior surfaces of the first and second clip arms that are inward-facing relative to the longitudinal axis of the clip,” Petitioner has not persuasively established that Malecki Embodiment #1 discloses this limitation. We find persuasive the testimony of Dr. Vaitekunas, that “[t]he jaws of Malecki Embodiment #1 have four walls,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand Figure 28A to illustrate links 404, 406 connecting to the side walls of jaws 308C, 310C on the side or lateral wall opposite (or underneath) the one shown in Figure 28A.” Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 66, 68. We agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider side or lateral walls as “inner walls” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. Thus, the portion of the jaw identified by Petitioner as shaded in green (Pet. 26) is a portion of the side/lateral wall, not an inward-facing wall. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 68. Petitioner has also not persuasively established that linkages 404, 406 contact any outside portion of the inner wall. As noted by Patent Owner above, Petitioner’s expert admits that Malecki does not disclose links 404, 406 contacting the radially inward-facing walls. See Ex. 2012 at 274:12–23. We also do not find persuasive Petitioner’s pin engagement theory. First, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Nicosia persuasively establish that a slot and pin channel (Pet. 15) is used in Malecki Embodiment #1. See Ex. 1095 ¶ 27. As pointed out by Dr. Vaitekunas, Petitioner’s theory that an engagement between a pin and a pin hole satisfies the “engaging the inner walls of the first and second clip arms” limitation is based on structure that is simply not disclosed in Malecki. Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. Further, we agree with Dr. Vaitekunas that “[e]ven if contact does occur between a pin and a pinhole, the contact occurs in the pin hole, not the exterior surface of a radially inward-facing wall.” Id. Finally, Petitioner seems to recognize that a modification would be” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,271,731 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,271,731
• Cook Group Incorporated / Cook Medical LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2018 · IPR2017-00135 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Kimura (claims 1, 3–5) and Kimura with Sackier (claim 10); claims 7, 11–15, and 17 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the filing of the application that became the ’371 patent would have possessed the knowledge and skill of an engineer or similar professional with at least an undergraduate degree in engineering, or a physician having experience with designing medical devices. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1029 ¶ 11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 15

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

    “The issue we have with Patent Owner’s contentions, as pointed out by Petitioner, is that Patent Owner does not establish persuasively how its claims require the “reversible open/close” feature and the “tactile feel features.” See Pet. Reply 27–29. Even presuming that these features did indeed drive tremendous commercial success and industry praise for the commercial products, Patent Owner does not adequately explain in its analysis how the claims of the challenged patent require these particular features that drive commercial success. Patent Owner seems to suggest that a break section in the control wire will fracture and that this feature in the commercial product relates to the tactile feel. PO Resp. 57 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 91–93) (“After the yoke has disengaged, if the handle spool is moved further proximally, a break section in the control wire will fracture, leaving the ball within the yoke and uncoupling the control wire from the distal components of the device.”). This “break section in the control wire” is not, however, claimed or covered in claim 1, the claim that purportedly embodies the commercial product. The claims alleged to cover the product do not specifically require any “tactile feel feature.”3 Likewise, while the claims may allow for an opening and closing of the clip assembly, there is no requirement in these claims that the clip assembly, as “demanded” by physicians, repeatedly open and close. Thus, both of the drivers of commercial success and industry praise are not commensurate in scope with the claims of the patented invention. See Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 23–29 (explaining how features are not claimed).” slip op. at 16

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

    “district court proceeding, Petitioner contends that “coupled to the sheath” means “slideable inside the sheath” and “the sheath confines the bushing.” Pet. 9. Petitioner provides no additional support. The district court tentatively rejected this broad interpretation. See Ex. 2003, 27–28 (“[T]he Court recommends that ‘coupled to the sheath’ be construed as ‘linked together, connected, or joined, but not slidable inside the sheath.’”). Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s proposed construction of “coupled to the sheath” is “unreasonably broad,” but provides little citation to the intrinsic record before us. Prelim. Resp. 13–14. Instead, Patent Owner notes that the plain and ordinary meaning of coupled is “linked together, connected, or joined,” citing to an unrelated Federal Circuit decision as well as the related district court determination. Id. at 14; Ex. 2003, 28. In our proceeding, Petitioner has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to support its claim interpretation by merely pointing to what Patent Owner purportedly argued in district court. Based on the final record before us, “coupled to the sheath” means “linked together, connected, or joined” to the sheath. Our construction is consistent with the district court’s analysis and reflects the common understanding of the term “coupled” in the mechanical arts to require more than simply abutting or contacting. See generally Ex Parte Paul Robert Homrich, Appeal 2014-005786, 2016 WL 3541285, at *3 (PTAB, June 27, 2016) (“When used in mechanical systems, the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘coupled’ means to link together or connect,” and coupled requires more than contact or abut.).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that Adams discloses “a bushing extending between a proximal end coupled to the sheath,” (Ex. 1027, 17:4–5) as required by claim 1 of the ’371 patent. Based on the final record, Petitioner’s contention that retainer 110 [bushing] is slidable inside the sheath, or confined by the sheath, does not establish persuasively that the proximal end of the bushing is coupled to the sheath as required by claim 1. The claimed coupling must be “proximal coupling” and Petitioner can only point to distal coupling via distal tabs 118, 119 (Pet. Supp. Reply 6) – this is not “proximal” coupling. Further, for the bushing and the sheath to be coupled requires them to be “linked together, connected, or joined” in some manner and Petitioner has not established any such connection for proximal coupling. Petitioner also has failed to establish a persuasive reason for linking or connecting retainer 110 and sheath 112 – indeed, doing so would negatively impact the ability of retainer 110 to freely slide out of sheath 112. See Prelim. Resp. 27. Adams suggest that when control wire 108 is actuated and the clip is locked into the lock sleeve, retainer release 109 pulls retainer 110 back, disengaging retainer tabs 118, 119 from the two retainer holes as depicted in Figure 4.” Ex. 1023, 7:26–44 Finally, we note that our decision would not change if we adopted the district court’s claim interpretation. The district court adopted a claim construction of “a bushing extending between a proximal end coupled to the sheath” as “linked together, connected, or joined, but not slidable inside the sheath.” Ex. 2003, 28 (emphasis added). Should the district court’s interpretation be the correct one, Patent Owner’s position is much stronger whereas Petitioner’s theory is based on slidable movement. See Pet. 9 (arguing for “slideable inside the sheath” and “the sheath confines the bushing”); Pet. Supp. Reply 6. Having now considered the evidence in the complete record established during trial, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been anticipated by Adams. Petitioner has not established persuasively that Adams discloses “a bushing extending between a proximal end coupled to the sheath.” For this reason, Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Adams anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,974,371 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,974,371
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01801 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30, 31, 33, and 40–46 were not shown unpatentable because Rabinovich required prior client access before replication, and Carter did not cure that limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Ratner, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 21–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 20. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. at 21. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

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

    “whether to replicate data object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating/migrating object xs only if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, and the ratio can be greater than m only if cnt(s,xs) is greater than zero. PO Resp. 19; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication or migration step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate or migrate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independent of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer.” slip op. at 18

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

    “30, for use with a computer game (claim 45) and with an interactive computer game accessed by at least two users (claim 46). Ex. 1001, 30:47– 54. In connection with its obviousness contentions, Petitioner makes no separate arguments why Rabinovich teaches or suggests shifting redundantly stored data based upon data transmission parameters between the servers independent of an access of the client. Pet. 45–47; Reply 17–18. Because claims 45 and 46 depend from claim 30, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rabinovich teaches or suggests the limitations in these two dependent claims for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 30.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS RE40,521 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rabinovich; Petitioner did not prove claims 1–15 obvious over Rabinovich.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 19–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 21. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

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

    “object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating object xs if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, i.e., a non-zero value. PO Resp. 34; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Rabinovich object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independently of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Rabinovich” slip op. at 18

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

    “pieces” Claim 1 recites “each file including a plurality of individual pieces, the pieces containing parts of the files.” Ex. 1002, 25:67–26:1. The other independent claims recite limitations commensurate in scope. Neither party proposes explicitly a construction of the term “piece.” Petitioner argues that “files are inherently composed of pieces in the form of bits that make up bytes, the bytes themselves being pieces of the file.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner argues that construing “piece” to cover “bits and bytes” of a file “would read out the ‘pieces’ limitation from the claim entirely” (PO Resp. at 29–30) and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the ‘pieces’ limitation of the claim to include bits and bytes” (id. at 30). The claims themselves define “piece” by requiring that a “file” have a “plurality of individual pieces,” but do not establish a lower bound—i.e., a minimum number of bits or bytes—to qualify as a “piece.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the ’680 patent for its contention that “piece” or “pieces” excludes a byte or bytes of a file, relying instead solely on the testimony of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39). We are not persuaded by Dr. Jacobs’s conclusory testimony. Because “piece” and “pieces” are limited by the claims only to being a subset of a file and because a byte or collection of bytes of a file is a subset of that file, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “piece” and “pieces” in light of the Specification of the ’680 patent encompasses a byte or bytes. slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,904,680 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,904,680
• Commscope Technologies, LLC v. Communications Components Antenna Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2016 · IPR2016-00999 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–28 unpatentable, principally because Yea did not establish the claimed asymmetrical coverage areas.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review of claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,311,582 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’582 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Communications Components Antenna Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–28 of the ’582 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner’s proposed construction of this limitation is supported by the specification of the ’582 patent. The ’582 patent discloses replacing a single sector coverage area with sub-sector coverage areas, at least one of which is an asymmetrical coverage area. Ex. 1001, 3:16–18. The ’582 patent discloses that the use of asymmetrical coverage areas permits the total coverage area to closely approximate the symmetrical sector coverage area being replaced, without creating excessively large sub-sector handover zones or introducing sever degradation in network performance. Id. at 3:18–24. The ’582 patent discloses creating the asymmetrical coverage areas by replacing an existing antenna with an antenna that has substantially the same coverage area, but divides the coverage area into a plurality of separate asymmetrical beams or sub-sectors. Id. at 4:32–38. As disclosed by the ’582 patent, the replacement antenna produces a plurality of separate beams, each defining a new sub-sector with only a small overlapping area between them and which together provide substantially identical coverage to the sector supported by the original antenna, to upgrade the single sector to a plurality of sub-sectors without significantly affecting neighboring sites. Id. at 4:51–57. The replacement antenna introduces asymmetry into the generated beam pattern. Id. at 4:58–60. The introduction of asymmetrical beams by the replacement antenna allows close approximation of the coverage area of the conventional sector antenna being replaced. Id. at 5:61–64. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a plurality of sub-sector coverage areas extending therefrom, at least one of which is asymmetrical,” as a plurality of replacement sub-sector beams, at least one of which has an asymmetrical shape, where asymmetry includes deliberate or inherent asymmetry as the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” slip op. at 8

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

    “49 (Fed. Cir. 2005). There, the district court invalidated claims of the patent in suit on summary judgment based on the measured dimensions of a prior art patent figure. Id. at 1148. The Federal Circuit reversed, warning “that arguments based on drawings not explicitly made to scale in issued patents are unavailing.” Id. at 1149. Petitioner here does not identify any portion of Yea disclosing that Figures 4 and 8 are drawn accurately enough to determine an asymmetrical nature of the radiation patterns. Petitioner also fails to cite to any disclosure in Yea that identifies or describes an asymmetrical nature of the radiation patterns. Furthermore, Petitioner also has not explained why the shapes shown in the linear scale drawings of Figure 4 would show similar shapes when converted to a logarithmic scale. Additionally, Petitioner does not explain why the carrier to interference ratio shown in Figure 8 can be used to accurately measure antenna radiation beam patterns. We find Petitioner does not sufficiently establish that the plots shown in Figures 4 and 8 of Yea can be used to determine whether the antenna radiation beam pattern is asymmetrical. On the record before us, we determine the Petition and supporting evidence does not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that Yea anticipates independent claims 1, 13, and 20. b. Dependent Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27 Petitioner argues that Yea anticipates dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27. Pet. 47–53. In so arguing, Petitioner relies on Yea as disclosing the claimed asymmetrical coverage area. Id. Because we are not persuaded that Yea discloses this limitation, we are not persuaded that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that Yea anticipates dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27.” slip op. at 14

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

    “as well as testimony of both Mr. Collins and Mr. Cosgrove. Under Rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, any genuine issues of material fact created by the testimonial evidence should be viewed in light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. Even reviewing the testimony of Mr. Collins in the light most favorable to Petitioner, we determine Petitioner has established only that asymmetrical beams may be used in a planar array antenna, but not that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood steered beams of a planar array antenna are necessarily asymmetrical. Mr. Collins cites to Litva (Ex. 1009) and Wästberg (Ex. 1018) in stating that prior art steered beams of a planar array antenna can be asymmetrical beams. Ex. 1024 ¶ 179. We credit Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Mr. Cosgrove to determine Petitioner does not sufficiently establish the likelihood that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that steered beams of a planar array antenna are necessarily asymmetrical. Further, Petitioner fails to set forth a sufficient rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would use the asymmetrical beams of the prior art with the disclosure of Yea. Pet. 39–40. On the record before us, we determine the Petition and supporting evidence does not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that using asymmetrical beams in Yea would have been obvious. We therefore conclude that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11–15, 18–22, 24, and 27 would have been obvious over Yea, Metawave Website, Litva, and Wästberg.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,311,582
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Emerachem Holdings, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 13, 2016 · IPR2014-01555 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied the Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 2, 7–12, 14–17, 19, 21–24, 31–42, and 44 unpatentable, and corrected the judgment to include claim 44.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “A. Rehearing Requests A rehearing request for a final decision is governed by 37 CFR § 42.71 (d), which provides that a party dissatisfied with a decision must specifically identify all matters believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.5 We therefore consider Patent Owner’s request for rehearing to determine whether we misapprehended or overlooked a matter, and whether it makes a difference to our determination in the Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 5

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

    “In our final written decision we observed that “‘intimately and entirely coated’ mean[s] exactly what it says. In other words, it means the embodiment shown in Figs. 1a through 1c of the ʼ558 patent drawings and associated discussion in the written description portion of the specification.” Paper 50, 23. In doing so, we relied principally on the intrinsic evidence of record in the specification. On rehearing, Patent Owner asserts that the claim interpretation used by the Board is not part of the record and was not presented by Petitioner. Reh’g Req. 3. We are not persuaded by this argument. First, the Patent Owner itself advocated in the Patent Owner’s response that Kinoshita did not contain oxidation catalyst species “intimately and entirely coated with an absorber.” Paper 29, 19–20. Second, the Board is not bound by the Petitioner and Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claim language, which may have inherent favoring of a particular interpretation for strategic reasons, as discussed in the final written decision. See Paper 50, 23. Patent Owner states that it has had no opportunity to address the claim construction and that it is fundamentally unfair and unreasonable that Patent Owner has not had a chance to address this claim construction. Reh’g Req. 2–3. We take such a statement seriously. However, we are unable to discern how the Board overlooked or misapprehended any fact or argument, let alone how the claim interpretation adversely affected the outcome of this proceeding for the Patent Owner.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “loading, Hoekstra has insufficient catalyst to form a continuous layer, and there is no evidence the method of Hoekstra results in all platinum being entirely covered. Id. at 11–12. As we have not interpreted claim 1 as requiring a continuous catalyst layer, we are unpersuaded by the first assertion. As to the second, we relied upon evidence from Hoekstra example 1, Dr. Crocker, and Dr. Farrauto. For example, Dr. Farrauto testified that barium oxide completely coated the platinum group metal. Ex. 1003A. More specifically, Dr. Farrauto testified: 39. Hoekstra also discloses that prior to calcining the platinum group metal-impregnated carrier material, the composite is further impregnated with a compound of an alkaline earth metal in solution with a reducing agent. Ex. 1005 at col. 3, ln. 51-55. The reducing agent prevents the leaching of the platinum group metal component from the carrier into the alkaline earth metal solution. See Ex. 1005 at col. 1, ln. 37-59; col. 3, ln. 55-59; col. 5, ln. 4-8. 40. Because the platinum group metal component does not leach from the carrier, the alkaline earth metal compound will be coated over the platinum group metal component. Ex. 1003, 11–12. We also specifically noted that Hoekstra describes this prevention of leaching. Hoekstra explicitly states in describing the result of process steps described in Example 1 that “[t]his example demonstrates that the inclusion of a reducing agent, e.g., hydrazine hydrate, obviates leaching of the platinum group metal component from the carrier material during the second impregnation step [i.e., adding a barium oxide layer].” Ex. 1005, col. 5:4–8 (italics added).” slip op. at 10

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

    “evidence that claims 1, 7, 8, 12, 14, 21, 22, 32–35, and 38–42 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 9–11 and 23 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (Ground 2, Hoekstra). Paper 50, 78. We also determined that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 33–40, 42, and 44 of the ʼ558 patent are anticipated by Kinoshita. (Ground 3, Kinoshita). Id. at 79. We additionally determined that Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 7–10, 14, 15, 17, 19, 24, 31, 33–37, 39, and 40 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (Ground 4, Inui). Id. We finally determined that Petitioner established that claims 1, 7, 8, 14–17, 19, and 31 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and that claims 21–23 of the ʼ558 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (Ground 5, Stiles). Id.” slip op. at 4

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 5,451,558
• Mastercard International Inc. v. Leon StamblerAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2016 · CBM2015-00044 · APJ Peter P Chen · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 51 and 53 are unpatentable as anticipated by Davies; claims 51, 53, 55, and 56 are unpatentable as obvious over Davies and Meyer; claim 55 over Davies and Nechvatal; and claim 56 over Davies, …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “F. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art is “at least a bachelors degree in computer programming and two years’ experience as a programmer or developer in the field of computer science, with a working understanding of cryptographic operations for transforming original input into a coded output using a known algorithm.” Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner has proposed similarly, that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess “(1) undergraduate education in mathematics, physics, computer science, electrical engineering or similar technical subject; and (2) either postgraduate education in networking, cryptography, or other discipline encompassing information theory, or equivalent experience with applications involving communication of financial, military, medical or similarly sensitive data over secure and non-secure networks.” Prelim. Resp. 30–31. We determine that an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”) (internal quotations omitted); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references.” slip op. at 16

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

    “1. “variable authentication number (VAN)” In the Decision to Institute, we construed the term “variable authentication number” or “VAN” as “a variable number resulting from a coding operation that can be used in verifying the identity of a party or the integrity of information or both.” Dec. to Inst. 8. See also Case IPR2014-00694, slip op. at 8–9 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2014) (Paper 10). Patent Owner “does not challenge this construction.” PO Resp. 16–17. Patent Owner asserts additional construction of the term is necessary for CBM standing issues, but does not elaborate further. PO Resp. 1. Patent Owner also argues we incorrectly applied the broadest reasonable interpretation to the term in the Decision to Institute. PO Resp. 9. The Decision to Institute noted that our review of the claims of the expired ’302 patent is similar to that of a district court’s review, In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005), but inadvertently mentioned the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in construing this term. Dec. to Inst. 7–8. We reaffirm our agreement with Patent Owner that the Phillips framework is applied to the expired ’302 patent. Our construction of “VAN” is the same under either claim construction standard. We reject Patent Owner’s undeveloped argument regarding standing, and maintain the construction of VAN from the Decision to Institute, as the ordinary and customary meaning of the term: “a variable number resulting from a coding operation that can be used in verifying the identity of a party or the integrity of information or both.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “2. Sequence of method steps: receiving, generating In the Decision to Institute, we agreed with Patent Owner and construed the sequence of method steps in independent claim 51 to mean that at least a portion of the receiving step must precede the generating step. Dec. to Inst. 8. See also Case IPR2014-00694, slip op. at 11–14 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2014) (Paper 10). We maintain that construction as the ordinary and customary meaning of the sequence of the receiving and generating method steps.” slip op. at 11

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

    “intended use of an invention is generally not treated as limiting the scope of the claim. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). However, “a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “The effect preamble language should be given can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989). When the limitations in the body of the claim rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble elements, e.g., the preamble serves as an antecedent basis for limitations in the claim, then the preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention and is limiting. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In this case, the preamble of independent claim 51 recites “a credential being previously issued,” and the limitations of the claim include “determining whether the at least a portion of the received funds transfer information is authentic by using the VAN and the credential information.” Ex. 1001, 33:18–19, 33:29–31. Thus, the preamble’s recitation of “a credential” is an antecedent basis for the recited “the credential information” in the “determining” step, and we determine that the preamble limits the scope of the challenged independent claim 51 and dependent claims 53, 55, and 56.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 5,793,302 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,793,302
• Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2016 · IPR2015-00219 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12–15 and 17–21 were not shown unpatentable because Oosterom did not disclose searching the database using a jurisdictional identifier.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we construed “jurisdictional identifier” to mean “a number or other name, code, or description that identifies a jurisdiction.” Dec. 6. We based our construction on the only appearance of “jurisdictional identifier” in the written description of the ’352 patent, which states: FIG. 3 illustrates a USA County Boundary Map (USACM). This is a public domain boundary file of each and every of the 3140 counties within the United States. Each of these polygons is geocoded with its county name and FIPS number, a numerical jurisdictional identifier, as illustrated in the figure. Ex. 1001, 8:48–53 (emphasis added).3 BSI does not challenge our construction of “jurisdictional identifier” in its Patent Owner Response, see PO Resp. 6, nor does CoreLogic challenge the construction in its Reply, see Reply 10. For this Final Written Decision, after considering the complete record, we maintain our construction of “jurisdictional identifier” as “a number or other name, code, or description that identifies a jurisdiction.”” slip op. at 5

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

    “Having reviewed the arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded CoreLogic has demonstrated that Oosterom discloses searching the parcel map database “using a jurisdictional identifier” as recited in claim 12. Among the attributes in Oosterom’s parcel and boundary tables identified by CoreLogic in its analysis, only the municipality codes (i.e., “municip” in the parcel table and “L_municip” and “R_municip” in the boundary table) qualify as “jurisdictional identifiers.” See Ex. 1010, 513–14 (Tables 1, 2). The “object_id” of an object, e.g., a parcel or a boundary, is a nationwide unique identifier, but there is no indication in Oosterom that the object_id of a parcel or boundary identifies a jurisdiction. See id. at 512; see also id. at 513–14 (showing object_id attribute in parcel and boundary tables). As for the “ogroup” attribute in the parcel and boundary tables, Oosterom states only that it “indicates to which group the record belongs.” Id. at 519. Nothing in Oosterom describes the ogroup as identifying a jurisdiction. Although the municipality code attributes in the parcel and boundary tables identify jurisdiction, CoreLogic does not cite any portion of Oosterom that illustrates the use of municipality codes in searching the database for selected parcels as required by claim 12. See Pet. 45. Dr. Goodchild opines that the “municipality code . . . would allow us to search [the] parcel table by that jurisdiction and to identify all the parcels in that jurisdiction.” Ex. 2010, 19:22–24. He further testifies that in his analysis, he “was concerned with the specific kind of query identified in the claim, which is much narrower than Oosterom’s discussion [and] much more specific than the broad range of queries discussed by Oosterom.” Id. at 21:14–25. Ultimately, he states that the “question [he] analyzed is whether [Oosterom’s] database is capable of supporting the type of query identified in the claim.” Id. at 22:14–16 (emphasis added). Dr. Goodchild’s testimony that municipality codes could be used in searching Oosterom’s database, however, is insufficient to establish for anticipation purposes that Oosterom discloses the step of searching a multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map database for a selected parcel boundary polygon “using a jurisdictional identifier.”” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeOther

    “C. CoreLogic’s Motion to Exclude Evidence CoreLogic moves to exclude the redirect testimony of BSI’s expert, Mr. William Huxhold, on the ground that it was provided in response to leading questions. Mot. Excl. 1 (citing Ex. 1034, 150:6–153:8). The redirect testimony relates to a portion of Mr. Huxhold’s cross-examination testimony. Id. at 1–2 (citing Ex. 1034, 72:5–22). Because we do not rely on Mr. Huxhold’s testimony, CoreLogic’s motion is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,065,352 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,065,352
• Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Apr 27, 2016 · IPR2014-00970 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Rehearing

  Denied SanDisk’s rehearing request; the Board maintained its findings that claims 2, 5, and 6 were not shown obvious over Huang and claims 17–19 and 35 were not shown anticipated by Averbuj.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “20–21 (“Averbuj discloses that in BIST mode, the multiplexer 46 shown in Fig. 6 selectively inputs signals BIST_ADDR/CTRL (i.e., address and control signals from the control module) to the address and control port of the corresponding memory device 12.” (emphasis added)). In other words, the Petition is devoid of any discussion of BIST_EN in connection with the limitations of claims 17–19 and 35. See Pet. 19–21. Likewise, the Reply fails to contain any discussion of how the claim limitations are met by Averbuj’s use of the BIST_EN signal. See Reply 17. 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) requires each petition to include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” Our discussion in the Final Decision of the patentability challenge as to claims 17–19 and 35 based on anticipation by Averbuj addresses Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition and Reply, which are limited to a contention that Averbuj’s multiplexer 46 is required to meet the “configured to selectively input” and “selectively inputs” limitations recited in claims 17–19 and 35. See Final Dec. 44–46 (citing Pet. 19–21; Reply 17). In arguing that we should have considered Dr. Alpert’s testimony that Averbuj’s sequencer, by generating a BIST_EN signal, is “configured to selectively input”/“selectively inputs” address and control signals to the memory modules, Petitioner attempts to improperly incorporate arguments into its Petition and Reply by reference to Dr. Alpert’s declaration testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). In any event, we find the declaration testimony relied on by Petitioner in support of this Request (see Req. Reh’g 13) supports our determination that Petitioner failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Averbuj anticipates claims 17–19 and 35. Dr. Alpert testified that if the “configuration [to selectively input to the address and control ports] is determined to require the structure that performs the selection itself, then the disclosed control module also includes multiplexer 46 of memory interface 41.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 78 (emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 81 (identifying multiplexer 46 as the “DRAM controller which performs the selective inputting” as recited in claim 18). Petitioner did not explain (see Pet. 19–21; Reply 17) how Averbuj describes multiplexer 46 as being part of sequencer 8 (the alleged control module). See Final Dec. 45–46 (explaining that Petitioner has not addressed Patent Owner’s argument that the device that selectively inputs address and control signals to memory modules 12 is multiplexer 46 of memory interface 41 (the alleged data handler), not sequencer 8 (the alleged control module)). In sum, for the above reasons, we are not persuaded of error in our determination that Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish unpatentability of claims 17–19 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Averbuj.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Huang and Tsern, Petitioner relied on the declaration testimony of its expert, Dr. Donald Alpert (Ex. 1007). See, e.g., id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 222 in support of its challenge as to claim 2). In concluding Petitioner had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that claims 2, 5, and 6 would have been obvious over Huang in view of Tsern, we said the following: Dr. Alpert’s opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Huang and Tsern . . . is either unsupported or relies on disclosure in the ’434 patent Detailed Description. See, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 193, 199, and 206. . . . [T]here is no evidence on this record that the cited portions of the ’434 patent are a description of prior art. Moreover, Dr. Alpert’s statements lack sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning as to why an ordinary artisan at the time of the invention would have had a reason to combine the prior art elements in the manner required by the challenged claims.” slip op. at 4

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

    “statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” Our discussion in the Final Decision of the patentability challenge as to claims 17–19 and 35 based on anticipation by Averbuj addresses Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition and Reply, which are limited to a contention that Averbuj’s multiplexer 46 is required to meet the “configured to selectively input” and “selectively inputs” limitations recited in claims 17–19 and 35. See Final Dec. 44–46 (citing Pet. 19–21; Reply 17). In arguing that we should have considered Dr. Alpert’s testimony that Averbuj’s sequencer, by generating a BIST_EN signal, is “configured to selectively input”/“selectively inputs” address and control signals to the memory modules, Petitioner attempts to improperly incorporate arguments into its Petition and Reply by reference to Dr. Alpert’s declaration testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). In any event, we find the declaration testimony relied on by Petitioner in support of this Request (see Req. Reh’g 13) supports our determination that Petitioner failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Averbuj anticipates claims 17–19 and 35. Dr. Alpert testified that if the “configuration [to selectively input to the address and control ports] is determined to require the structure that performs the selection itself, then the disclosed control module also includes multiplexer 46 of memory interface 41.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 78 (emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 81 (identifying multiplexer 46 as the “DRAM controller which performs the selective inputting” as recited in claim 18). Petitioner did not explain (see Pet. 19–21; Reply 17) how Averbuj describes multiplexer 46 as being part of sequencer 8 (the alleged control module). See Final Dec. 45–46 (explaining that Petitioner has not addressed Patent Owner’s argument that the device that selectively inputs address and control signals to memory modules 12 is multiplexer 46 of memory interface 41 (the alleged data handler), not sequencer 8 (the alleged control module)). In sum, for the above reasons, we are not persuaded of error in our determination that Petitioner did not meet its burden to establish unpatentability of claims 17–19 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Averbuj.” slip op. at 11

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,001,434

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.