• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01132 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 5 are anticipated by Anzai, claim 4 is obvious over Anzai and Yamazaki, and claims 1–7 are obvious over Yamazaki and Anzai.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner describes a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA” or “ordinarily skilled artisan”) at the time of the invention as having “a Bachelors’ degree in electrical engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience with electronic and optoelectronic device design” and notes that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶ 23). Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Bretschneider testifies that In my opinion, the field of “electronic and optoelectronic device design” is too broad. A POSITA of the ’121, had at least a Bachelors’ degree in a field of engineering or physics and at least two to three years of professional experience related to the design and manufacture of the relevant aspects of flat panel displays. Additional relevant graduate education related [sic] could reduce but not eliminate the time requirement for professional experience. While Dr. Neikirk proposes a different definition of a POSITA, the differences do not have material effect on my opinions rendered below. Regardless of which definition of a POSITA were used, my conclusions would remain the same Ex. 2005, Bretschneider Decl., ¶ 39. We agree with and will apply Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This level of ordinary skill is reflective of the education and experience that would have been required to understand the problems and solutions identified in the ’121 patent and the prior art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note that our conclusions would be the same even if we applied Patent Owner’s slightly narrower definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We find these definitions to be of some help in construing this term. We find that the common thread is that a “passivation layer” is an insulating layer that provides protection from the environment to the layers below it. See Ex. 1012, 140; Ex. 1013, 542, Ex. 1014, 798; Ex. 2010, 3; Ex. 2013, 1. We find this construction to be most consistent with the broad claim language and the disclosure in the Specification. Although “tying up dangling bonds,” may be a mechanism by which some materials provide such protection, nothing in the Specification or the extrinsic evidence provided appears to require that. Also, while chemical protection may be one kind of protection none of the evidence suggests that is the only protection that is provided. Moreover, nothing in the Specification supports reading a chemical protection requirement into the construction. Thus, we decline to adopt that portion of Patent Owner’s construction. Instead, we construe passivation layer as “an insulating layer that provides protection from the environment to the layers below it.” We need not construe the term any further to resolve the parties’ dispute over this claim language. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 19

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

    “constructions for “passivation layer” and “capping layer.” We find that Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to show that Anzai discloses both a “passivation layer” and a “capping layer.” As we explained above, we have construed “passivation layer” to mean “an insulating layer that provides protection from the environment to the layers below it.” Petitioner has shown that “first planarization film 17” is an insulating layer. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 62–65. We further find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that “first planarization film 17” is “formed over the entire surface for flattening, which will protect the semiconductor surface from the surrounding environment.” Id. ¶ 63. We have rejected Patent Owner’s contentions that the film must tie up “dangling bonds,” and instead determined that protecting the surface from the environment is sufficient. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Anzai discloses the “passivation layer” of claim 3. As we explained above, we have construed “capping layer” to be “an insulation layer covering (i.e., capping) an underlying layer or structure.” Here, Petitioner has shown that Anzai’s planarization film 19 meets the claimed “capping layer.” See Pet. 20. We find that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that “planarization film 19” is made of insulating material. As Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies, Anzai discloses that planarization layer 17 may be made of an organic resin for flattening the surface. EX1003, 4:20-24. While Anzai does not disclose the material for planarization layer 19, it must be made of an insulation material because in the embodiment of Fig. 3A, it is the sole layer between electrode layer 71 and cathode layer 65 forming the second capacitor. Id., 6:3–8; Fig. 3A. Moreover, Anzai discloses that the first planarization film 17 and the second planarization film 19 for the first embodiment “function as the capacitance insulating film for this configuration.” Id., 5:62–67. Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶ 62. We find this testimony well-reasoned and entitled to substantial weight. We further agree with Dr. Neikirk that a “POSITA would further understand that the second planarization film 19 is then further disposed on the first planarization film 17 (capping the passivation layer).” Id. ¶ 63 (citing Ex. 1003, 5:3–13; Figs. 2A–B, 3A–B). Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Anzai discloses the claimed “capping layer.” Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of” slip op. at 32

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

    “motivation to combine Anzai and Yamazaki. See Pet. 25–27; Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶¶ 78–79. First, Patent Owner argues that essentially silicon nitride is an inferior material to use for Anzai’s planarization layer 17 compared with organic resin. PO Resp. 13–15. However, “[i]t’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 797, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (emphasis in original). Patent Owner does not argue that silicon nitride would not work, but rather that it would be more difficult and more expensive to use. See PO Resp. 14. But “the fact that the two disclosed apparatus[es] would not be combined by businessmen for economic reasons is not the same as saying that it could not be done because skilled persons in the art felt that there was some technological incompatibility that prevented their combination. Only the latter is telling on the issue of nonobviousness.” Grit Energy Solutions LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, 957 F.3d 1309, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co., Inc. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Likewise, a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, Petitioner explains that “a POSITA would have known that organic materials usually have lower dielectric constants than inorganic materials, such as SiN, and a higher dielectric constant is desirable for the insulator in a capacitor since that leads to higher capacitance per unit area.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶ 78). Petitioner further explains that this “then allows a reduced area storage capacitance element, one of the objectives of Anzai.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, code (57)). Patent Owner’s focus mainly on planarization (PO Sur-reply 16–17) ignores that the Anzai’s planarization layers 17 and 19 also “function as the capacitance insulating film.” Ex. 1003, 5:65–67. Thus, although there are tradeoffs, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Yamazaki regarding potential materials for planarization layers 17 and 19. Second, Patent Owner argues that a Petitioner has failed to provide an adequate reason to select silicon nitride from Yamazaki’s list of potential materials. We disagree. Petitioner has explained the benefits of selecting a high dielectric inorganic material. Pet. 26. Yamazaki provides only three potential options—silicon oxide, silicon nitride, and silicon oxynitride. See Ex. 1004, 11:45–50. Moreover, Dr. Neikirk testified, supported by multiple references, that using silicon nitride was well known in the prior art at the time of the invention. See Ex. 1002, Neikirk Decl., ¶ 75 (citing Ex. 1007; Ex. 1008; Ex. 1009). “When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Indeed, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. This is the case here. Petitioner has shown that a person of ordinary skill seeking to improve the capacitance of Anzai’s planarization layers 17 and 19, without increasing the size of the capacitor, would have looked at the inorganic materials identified in Yamazaki as suitable for the purpose, and it would have been would obvious to choose silicon nitride, a well-known, and predictable material for the application. Thus, we disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show a sufficient reason for selecting silicon nitride from Yamazaki’s list of suitable materials. Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s contentions only support” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 7,586,121 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,586,121
• Boe Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Optronic Sciences, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01133 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 9, and 12–13 as anticipated by Weaver, and claims 6–8 and 10–11 as obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art). In general, we agree with the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. In particular, Patent Owner proposes “at least a Bachelors’ degree in a field of engineering or physics,” which includes “electrical engineering or a comparable field of study” as Petitioner proposes. Pet. 4 (emphasis added); PO Resp. 10. We agree with Petitioner that by defining the engineering field as “electrical” or “comparable,” we can exclude engineering fields “having nothing to do with displays, such as biomedical, civil, chemical or environmental engineering.” Pet. Reply 1. Petitioner also proposes approximately “one or more years of professional experience” which includes Patent Owner’s “at least two years of professional experience.” Pet. 4; PO Resp. 10. Furthermore, both parties agree that “[a]dditional graduate education could [reduce . . . the time requirement] for professional experience.” Id. Thus, we adopt both parties’ proposed POSITA of having a Bachelors’ degree in electrical engineering or a comparable field of study, plus at least two years of professional experience, wherein additional graduate education could reduce the time requirement for professional experience. Id. Such proposal comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The plain language in claim 1 of “auxiliary electrode” does not preclude that the “electrode” may be a power line, bus line, or resistor. Ex. 1001, 8:47–52. Nothing in the Specification clearly precludes “auxiliary electrode” from being a “bus line” or “power line,” as Patent Owner proposes. PO Resp. 25–27. We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification discloses that “the power line ‘PL’ is shown in Figure 1, but the power line PL is not an electrode that is shown in Figure 2.” Id. at 26–27. Here, Patent Owner points to no portions in the Specification that provide the requisite “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” to warrant interpreting the claim language at issue as supporting Patent Owner’s contention that an auxiliary electrode cannot be a power line, bus line, or resistor. Id.; In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1984). That is, although Patent Owner points to Figures 1 and 2 of the Specification for support of its contention, Figures 1 and 2 of the Specification merely show various examples of power line and an auxiliary electrode. PO Resp. 26–27. Thus, although the referenced portions of the Specification discuss various examples wherein an auxiliary electrode may be implemented, nothing in these referenced portions of the Specification clearly precludes the “auxiliary electrode” from being a power line or any electrode that is “the road to get to an end point,” as Patent Owner contends. Id. Patent Owner points to no special definition, implicit or explicit, for “auxiliary electrode” that is set forth in the Specification which supports Patent Owner’s construction with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments unavailing. In particular, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that “‘bus line 430’ is not an ‘auxiliary electrode’” (PO Resp. 28–33), because Patent Owner is relying on a claim construction of “auxiliary electrode” as precluding “essential” elements and requiring “more than the end structure of a conductor” (id.), that is not adopted by our construction discussed above. Here, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on Weaver’s bus line 430 for providing the claimed “electrode,” that is “supplemental to other electrodes in the structure.” Pet. 18; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 26, Fig. 4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 92. We find availing Petitioner’s contention, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that a POSITA would have understood that “anode 406 and bus line 430 are connected in parallel,” which means that “bus line 430 is a supplemental electrode that reduces the total resistance of the pixel structure.” Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 94. Thus, we find availing Petitioner’s contention, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that Weaver’s bus line 430 is an electrode supplemental to other electrodes in the structure that is electrically insulated from transistor 410 by passivation layer 409, wherein OLED 400, which includes cathode 422, organic layer 424, and anode 406, is disposed above bus line 430, and wherein anode 406 of OLED 400 is electrically connected to bus line 430 by via 428. Pet. 16–19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 89–94. That is, we find availing Petitioner’s contention that, like the ’509 patent’s auxiliary electrode 120, bus line 430 is electrically insulated from transistor 410, wherein OLED 400 is disposed above bus line 430 and anode 406 electrically connected with bus line 430. Compare Pet. 2–3 (annotated” slip op. at 26

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

    “We also find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that the proposed modifications to Weaver would involve changing the process. PO Resp. 33– 34. We agree with Petitioner, whose contentions are supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that “to provide additional components from the same layer is a layout change that a POSITA would have been able to perform without changing the process.” Pet. Reply 17–18 (citing Ex 1003 ¶ 157; Ex. 1020 ¶ 45). Further, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention that POSITA would not have combined Weaver with Lee ’053, Song, Lee ’149, or Bae without the use of hindsight (PO Resp. 33–45), as Petitioner points out, Lee ’149, for example, “explicitly teaches that ‘the electrode pattern 45 serves to lower the resistance of the first electrode 41.” Pet. Reply 58 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 38). Similarly, Bae “explicitly teaches that the “auxiliary electrodes 139 contact the first electrode 132 to commonly apply a voltage to the sub-pixels” and “reduces the resistance of the first electrode.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 37, 59). As such, Petitioner’s proposed combinations are supported by at least by Lee ’149’s and Bae’s teachings of applying a second electrode to lower the resistance and voltage drop between anode 406 and the VDD line of Weaver. See, e.g., Ex. 1011 ¶ 38; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 37, 59. We are persuaded by Dr. Baker’s testimony that a POSITA would have understood that higher resistance between the power or ground line to the light emitting device would consume more power and require higher operating voltages, and thus, would have been motivated to implement the solutions of Lee ’053, Song, Lee ’149, or Bae to lower the resistance between anode 406 and voltage source VDD in Weaver. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145, 158, 184, 203. We agree with Petitioner, supported by Dr. Baker’s testimony, that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success the combining the references as suggested, wherein such modification “involves modifications of only routine skill in the art,” which “involve known method,” and “would have yielded predictable results. Pet. 42, 48–49, 59, 67–68; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 145, 158, 184, 203. That is, we determine that Petitioner has set forth reasoning with rational underpinning explaining why it would have been obvious to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. Based on the complete record presented, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6–8 would have been obvious over the combination of Weaver and Lee ’053 or alternatively over the combination of Weaver and Song, and that claims 10 and 11 would have been obvious over the combination of Weaver and Lee ’149 or alternatively over the combination of Weaver and Bae.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 9,263,509 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,263,509
• Hum Industrial Technology, Inc. v. Amsted Rail Company, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00539 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held original claims 1–18 and 20–22 unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds, denied the revised motion to amend, and held substitute claims 23–43 ineligible and unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “f. Conclusion We determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of” slip op. at 27

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

    “2. Motivation to combine a. Petitioner’s contentions Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of LeFebvre and Barone to monitor the condition of railcar wheels and bearings using sensors connected over a wireless mesh network and to analyze collected data to determine if a wheel bearing failure is imminent and issue an alert to the locomotive or central station. Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1007, code (57), Abstr., ¶¶ 45, 86, 201–220; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–162). b. Patent Owner’s arguments Patent Owner does not contest these assertions regarding a motivation to combine LeFebvre and Barone. See generally PO Resp.; Sur-reply. c. Conclusion We determine a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of” slip op. at 51

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

    “(4) Conclusion We determine that Patent Owner has demonstrated that the inventors” slip op. at 59

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

    “(4) Conclusion We determine that the above-described lack of clarity in the meaning” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 9,981,673 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,981,673
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Ideahub Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2024 · PGR2022-00044 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable for lack of written description under § 112(a); the Board did not reach the anticipation and obviousness grounds based on HEVC265.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art at the priority date for the ’274 Patent (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related scientific field such as physics or computer science, and two years of work experience with video processing. A lack of experience can be remedied with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, a lack of education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 4–5 years). This definition would apply at the earliest claimed priority date of the ’274 Patent as well as any later date. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 50–52). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it appears to be consistent with the Specification of the ’274 patent and the cited reference.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “A party is collaterally estopped from relitigating an issue if: (1) a prior action presents an identical issue; (2) the prior action actually litigated and adjudged that issue; (3) the judgment in that prior action necessarily required determination of the identical issue; and (4) the prior action featured full representation of the estopped party. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 909 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc., 702 F.3d 640, 644 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 21

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “For the reasons that follow, we determine that the ’928 application does not provide sufficient written description support, for at least independent claim 1 of the ’274 patent, so as to “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date” of the ’928 application. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the ’928 application lacks sufficient written description support for the invention recited in claim 1 of the ’274 patent, and thus, claim 1 does not receive an effective filing date as early as that of the ’928 application (i.e., December 23, 2010). We further determine that Petitioner filed the Petition within the 9-month statutory period for requesting post-grant review in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 321(c). The ’274 patent issued on September 14, 2021 (see Ex. 1001, code (45)), and the present Petition was accorded a filing date of June 9, 2022 (see Paper 5). Accordingly, the Petition was filed less than 9 months after the date of issuance of the ’274 patent. In view of the above, we are persuaded that the ’274 patent is eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 11,122,274 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,122,274
• Medtronic Corevalve LLC / Medtronic, Inc. v. Speyside Medical, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 16, 2022 · IPR2021-00244 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21 and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Salahieh and Sands; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), at the time the ’708 or its parent applications were filed, would have had a minimum of either a medical degree and experience working as an interventional cardiologist or a Bachelor’s degree in bioengineering or mechanical engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of professional experience in the field of prosthetic cardiovascular implants. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–34). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision because neither party disputes that determination, and that level of ordinary skill is consistent with the record. See Resp. 11 (applying Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill).” slip op. at 8

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

    “ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Furthermore, we expressly construe the claims only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). For purposes of this decision, the parties agree that we do not need to construe any claim terms to resolve their dispute. Resp. 12, 13 n.1; Reply 1 (“The Board need not construe any claim terms as the claims are unpatentable under Grounds 1-2.”). Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms in this decision. Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 8

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

    “petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability. A petitioner bears the burden of proving that a non-patent reference qualifies as a printed publication. Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“As petitioner, Blizzard had the burden to prove Lin is a printed publication.”); Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 11 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential) (“To prevail in a final written decision in an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a particular document is a printed publication.”). The determination of whether a reference is a “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). Whether a document qualifies as a printed publication is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual determinations. Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the McCarthy declaration because we find Petitioner’s other evidence and arguments demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Sands was publicly available.8 Our analysis focuses on the indicia of availability on Sands and Dr. Drasler’s testimony, as outlined below.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 9,603,708 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,603,708
• Askeladden LLC v. Authwallet LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2022 · IPR2021-00005 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: Hogg anticipates claims 1–3, 5, 7–14, 16–23, 25, and 27–29; the remaining challenged claims are unpatentable under the listed obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony that “Hogg discloses that it keeps track of ‘recent transactions’ as a parameter for use with the fraud indicator rules.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 205 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 68), which is supported by Hogg’s description of its fraud check module as discussed above. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of evidence, that Hogg anticipates claim 18.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner asserts that the claim terms “determining/determine,” “token,” and “load” should be construed. Pet. 14–18. Construction of these claim terms is not, however, necessary to our decision. Accordingly, we do not construe them at this time.” slip op. at 6

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

    “identifiers including the purchaser identifier included in the authorization request” appears in claims 3, 14, and 23. Ex. 1001, 27:39–41, 28:44–46, 30:1–3. Patent Owner asserts that ‘“the processing rule applies to a group of purchaser identifiers including the purchaser identifier’ means that the processing rule applies equally to each of the group of purchaser identifiers including the purchaser identifier.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 37) (emphasis added). Patent Owner does not explain why this limitation requires that the rule apply equally to each member of the group. Neither does its expert, Mr. Landers. Ex. 2001 ¶ 37. Instead, Patent Owner directs our attention to the portion of the ’776 patent that describes rules modules including rules for sub-accounts. Id. at 4–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:25–43).9 The ’776 patent, however, does not indicate that rules must be applied equally to each member of a group. See Ex. 1001, 14:37–43. Rather, it describes a group (master account) having additional rules that apply only to members of a sub-group (sub or child account). Id. at 14: 37–43. As the 9 Patent Owner only cites column 14 lines 25–27 of the ’776 patent, but the portion of the specification that describes sub-accounts is at lines 27–43 of column 14. members of the sub-account are necessarily members of the master account, the additional rules do not apply equally to every member of the master account. Id. at 14:27–43. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “the processing rule applies to a group of purchaser identifiers including the purchaser identifier included in the authorization request.” Instead, on this record, we determine that this limitation should be construed in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning.” slip op. at 7

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

    “2. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7–9, 11–13, 16–18, 20–22, 25, and 27–29 Petitioner submits that Hogg discloses each and every limitation of claims 1, 2, 5, 7–9, 11–13, 16–18, 20–22, 25, and 27–29. Pet. 19–39, 41–54. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s challenge to these claims. See generally PO Resp. In addition, during oral argument, Patent Owner confirmed that Petitioner’s challenges to these claims are uncontested. Tr. 18–19. We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and argument. See Pet. 19–39, 41–54. We agree with it and adopt it as our own. For the reasons provided therein, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of evidence, that Hogg anticipates claims 1, 2, 5, 7–9, 11–13, 16–18, 20–22, 25, and 27–29.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 8,280,776 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,280,776
• Askeladden LLC v. Authwallet LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2022 · IPR2021-00005 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: Hogg anticipates claims 1–3, 5, 7–14, 16–23, 25, and 27–29; the listed combinations render claims 4–6, 15, 19, 24, 26, and 27 unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Accordingly, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by one with ordinary skill in the art in the context of the specification, the prosecution history, other claims, and even extrinsic evidence including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, although extrinsic evidence is less significant than the intrinsic record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17. Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner asserts that the claim terms “determining/determine,” “token,” and “load” should be construed. Pet. 14–18. Construction of these claim terms is not, however, necessary to our decision. Accordingly, we do not construe them at this time.” slip op. at 6

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

    “The ’776 patent, however, does not indicate that rules must be applied equally to each member of a group. See Ex. 1001, 14:37–43. Rather, it describes a group (master account) having additional rules that apply only to members of a sub-group (sub or child account). Id. at 14: 37–43. As the 9 Patent Owner only cites column 14 lines 25–27 of the ’776 patent, but the portion of the specification that describes sub-accounts is at lines 27–43 of column 14. members of the sub-account are necessarily members of the master account, the additional rules do not apply equally to every member of the master account. Id. at 14:27–43. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “the processing rule applies to a group of purchaser identifiers including the purchaser identifier included in the authorization request.” Instead, on this record, we determine that this limitation should be construed in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument, however, is not commensurate in scope with the language of these claims. As discussed in Section II.A.3 above, claims 10 and 19 include alternative limitations. Both alternatives require specification of a time interval. Ex. 1001, 28:4–5. In the first alternative “executing the associated action comprises rejecting all transactions during the specified time period.” Id. at 28:5–7. In the second alternative executing the associated action comprises “executing a specified verification procedure for all transactions during the specified time period.” Id. at 28:7– 9. It appears that Patent Owner is importing an additional requirement into the second alternative (that the outcome of the specified verification procedure be the same for all transactions during the specified time interval). We do not understand the claim to be so limited. Further, we agree with Petitioner that “Patent Owner ignores the fact that there is an ‘or’ in the claim limitation such that the claim may be met by a rule ‘executing a specified verification procedure for all transactions during the specified time period’ . . . and does not need to also have a rule ‘rejecting all transactions during the specified time period.’” Pet. Reply 11 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner also argues that Hogg does not disclose a specified verification procedure, because its “specified period of time is within the rule.” PO Resp. 16; see also PO Sur-reply 5. Patent Owner’s argument is premised on its proposed claim construction which we do not adopt. Patent Owner would have us read large portions of the specification of the ’776 patent into claims 10 and 19. See PO Sur-reply 5–8. We decline to do so. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We credit Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony that “Hogg discloses that it keeps track of ‘recent transactions’ as a parameter for use with the fraud indicator rules.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 205 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 68), which is supported by Hogg’s description of its fraud check module as discussed above. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of evidence, that Hogg anticipates claim 18.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,280,776 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,280,776
• Sage Products, LLC v. Purewick CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01426 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–8, and 17–19 are unpatentable as anticipated by Mahnensmith; the Board also found them obvious over Kuntz 166, DesMarais, and ordinary skill.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “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.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). To establish anticipation, “all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim.” Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that “a POSITA would be a clinical practitioner with an advanced medical degree, or an individual having a bachelor’s degree in engineering, knowledgeable in the field of normal micturition (voiding) and with experience in the field of urine management and incontinence care including devices for urine collection and management.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 23). Patent Owner argues that a POSITA “would have had a bachelor’s degree in engineering (e.g., chemical or material sciences), or an advanced medical degree, and at least 1–2 years of experience in designing products related to the biomedical application of material and chemical sciences.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2060 ¶ 8). We agree with Petitioner that the ’508 patent does not involve advances in “material or chemical sciences”; rather, it describes a vacuum urine collector using “moisture-wicking article,” which the patent describes as including paper towel, gauze, felt, and similar materials, secured over a perforated container using, e.g., elastic bands, clips, and snaps. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 4:1–15; Ex. 1017 ¶ 5. The ’508 patent does not focus on “principles of adhesion and cohesion” and “hydrophobic and hydrophilic materials,” as Patent Owner alleges. See PO Resp. 9–10. Instead, we agree with Petitioner that knowledge of urine collection devices is what is necessary, rather than the more generalized field of “biomedical application of material and chemical sciences.” Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 5–7. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and in the asserted prior art references. See 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). We note, however, that we reach the same decision under either definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Here, we find the testimony of Dr. Newman of why pad 112 of Mahnensmith cannot have an uncovered opening credible, well-reasoned, and entitled to significant weight. See Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 64–68. We note that In an anticipation analysis, the dispositive question is whether a skilled artisan would “reasonably understand or infer” from a prior art reference that every claim limitation is disclosed in that single reference. Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc., 344 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Expert testimony may shed light on what a skilled artisan would reasonably understand or infer from a prior art reference. Monsanto Tech. LLC v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 878 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Acoustic Tech., Inc. v. Itron Networked Sols., Inc., 949 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Dr. Newman explains that Mr. Jezzi fails to adequately account for what Figure 4 depicting pad 112 would have disclosed to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1017 ¶ 64. Moreover, Dr. Newman explains that a person of ordinary skill would understand that Mahnensmith’s pad 112 cannot have uncovered openings because Mahnensmith states that its moisture-wicking article is “removably affixed to the outermost face of permeable layer 116 by use of double-stick tape located around the perimeter of the porous sheet member 136…” (Ex. 1004 at ¶30.) If there is an exposed opening at the perimeter, as Mr. Jezzi claims, that would mean that the double-sided tape would cover it, so it is not an “opening.” A POSA would not assemble a vacuum-assisted urine collection device like Mahnensmith’s just to cover its vacuum openings with tape, as that would defeat the purpose of having any inlet openings there in the first place. Moreover, the opening(s) would make it difficult for the tape to stay secure in that location. Ex. 1017 ¶ 67. In addition, Dr. Newman testifies” slip op. at 36

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

    “In an anticipation analysis, the dispositive question is whether a skilled artisan would “reasonably understand or infer” from a prior art reference that every claim limitation is disclosed in that single reference. Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc., 344 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Expert testimony may shed light on what a skilled artisan would reasonably understand or infer from a prior art reference. Monsanto Tech. LLC v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 878 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Acoustic Tech., Inc. v. Itron Networked Sols., Inc., 949 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2020).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 8,287,508 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,287,508
• Hamilton Technologies LLC v. Fleur TehraniAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 28, 2021 · IPR2020-01199 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 9–12, 29–33, and 41 are unpatentable as obvious over the Carmichael-Anderson and Taube-based combinations; the Carmichael anticipation ground was not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Imbruce’s testimony should be disregarded. With respect to Patent Owner’s contentions about “technically erroneous disclosures” and the construction of “for a next breath,” those are really about Patent Owner’s disagreements about those matters, not whether Dr. Imbruce was attempting to mislead the Board. Disagreement between the experts is not a basis for disregarding testimony. We have also reviewed the entirety of Dr. Imbruce’s deposition, and, in particular, the various parts identified by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 76–77. And, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, we found Dr. Imbruce gave detailed answers in response to Patent Owner’s questions. We found Dr. Imbruce’s testimony to be adequate. See, e.g., Ex. 2016, 107:11–115:8 (discussion of Anderson references, explaining the similarities of the references, but declining to vouch for data he has not seen or collected); 115:9–116:6 (FDA permission, offering to confirm what reference said about FDA approval, but attorney moving on to other questions). Thus, we do not find Dr. Imbruce’s behavior during cross examination as a reason to give no weight to the entirety of his testimony.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(i) a medically trained physician or clinician specializing in treating respiratory failure issues with at least five years of practical clinical ventilator experience treating such conditions; or (ii) a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or a related field and about five years of practical experience with developing ventilators for clinical patient treatment; or (iii) a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or a related field and about 10 years of practical experience with developing ventilators for clinical patient treatment. Pet. 20‒21 (referencing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 71‒72). Petitioner proposes that “[a] higher level of education or specific skill might compensate less experience, and vice versa.” Id. at 21. Patent Owner does not present an opposing view of the level of skill of the hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art of the ’571 patent. See PO Resp. passim. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that this definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’571 patent, based on our review of the record.” slip op. at 13

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

    “In our Institution Decision, we determined that only the claim terms “first means” and “second means” required construction. Inst. Dec. 25–27. Neither party disputes those constructions and we maintain and adopt them for the purposes of this Decision. We determine that, for purposes of this decision, no other terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 17

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Carmichael lacks adequate disclosure to anticipate the apparatus of claim 1. Specifically, because Carmichael focuses on the result of physician surveys, and not on the description of a ventilation system per se, Carmichael lacks details as to the specific manner in which the assist control mode was being used to control PEEP and FIO2 levels. Specifically, we cannot discern that Carmichael’s discussion of an assist control mode for mechanical ventilation necessarily entails adjustments to FIO2 and PEEP “for a next breath of the patient” as recited in claim 1. As explained by Patent Owner, it is possible that the parameters of PEEP and FIO2 could have been set manually by the physician and/or could have been updated only periodically during treatment. See, e.g., PO Resp. 25‒26. Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that Carmichael anticipates claim 1, or claims 2, 5, 6, and 11 that depend from claim 1.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,802,571 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,802,571
• Microsoft Corporation v. Iron Oak Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 7, 2020 · IPR2019-00107 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Oberlander and obvious over Oberlander or Dutta and Oberlander; the remaining alternative grounds were not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’658 patent would have a “Bachelor’s degree in computer 7 No evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness is in the record. engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, physics or a similar discipline” and “at least two years of relevant experience including, for example, work related to computer and telecommunications networking.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. Based on the foregoing, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears reasonable and consistent with the disclosure of the ’658 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Based on all the evidence of record and the parties’ respective arguments, we determine that express construction of these claim terms is not necessary for the purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”). To the extent necessary, claim terms will be construed below when addressing the parties’ arguments.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner’s contention is based on an implicit construction of “associated with” which requires that communication attributes be present in the structure of the data base shown in Oberlander’s Figure 5. However, Patent Owner does not provide any arguments or intrinsic evidence in support of such a construction. See PO Resp. 2–3. Further, a plain and ordinary meaning of the word “associated” is “related, connected, or combined together.” See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ associated. Consequently, the relevant inquiry is not whether communication attributes are present in the same table as the Oberlander’s network lists but rather whether the network lists are related to, connected to, or combined with communication attributes.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Patent Owner’s contention is based on an implicit construction of “associated with” which requires that communication attributes be present in the structure of the data base shown in Oberlander’s Figure 5. However, Patent Owner does not provide any arguments or intrinsic evidence in support of such a construction. See PO Resp. 2–3. Further, a plain and ordinary meaning of the word “associated” is “related, connected, or combined together.” See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ associated. Consequently, the relevant inquiry is not whether communication attributes are present in the same table as the Oberlander’s network lists but rather whether the network lists are related to, connected to, or combined with communication attributes. Oberlander’s message 300 contains attributes field 310 that includes various attributes of a message including “message priority,” as noted by Petitioner, and “message logical size.” Ex. 1005, 3:66–4:9; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 125 (“attributes help determine which network . . . the message will be routed on.”) (citing Ex. 1005 4:62–5:1). Figure 7b of Oberlander, discloses “a graphical representation of a logic function that delimits messages based upon size.” Id. at 5:58–59, Fig. 7b. Oberlander further discloses in connection with Figure 9 that “the attribute 310 values of the received message 300 are applied to the logic function of the retrieved record at block 912 by NMM 115. At block 914 a check is performed by NMM 115 to determine whether the logic function is true or false” based on the message attribute value. Id. at 8:47–51, Fig. 9. If the logic function is true at step 914, “flow proceeds to block 918, where the network ID list stored in field 505 of the retrieved record is written by NMM 115 into Null field 308 of the message 300.” Id. at 8:61–64, Fig. 9. As discussed above, message 300 includes attributes field 310. Id. at Fig. 9. Patent Owner confirms that this is the process by which Oberlander’s logic functions are used. See Sur-reply 6, 8–10. As a result, in the case of the logic function shown in Figure 7b, the network ID list stored in field 505 is related to (i.e., “associated with”) the communication attribute of message size. See also Ex. 1003 ¶ 125. Based on the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner discussed above and after considering Patent Owner’s arguments, we determine that Petitioner establishes that Oberlander discloses the limitation “each ordered list associated with one of a plurality of communication attributes.”” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 5,966,658 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,966,658

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.