• Embody, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. v. Lifenet HealthSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4–8 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 4–6 as obvious over Huang2 and Kuo, and claims 7–8 as anticipated by Huang2; claims 2–3 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “(“POSITA”) “would be a Ph.D. student with a minimum of two years of experience in their faculty advisor’s laboratory” and would have an understanding of “electrospinning fibers, including for tissue engineering, tissue engineering techniques, and using/performing FFT analysis.” Pet. 20– 21 (citing Ex. 1003 § II.C7). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal but specifies the set of disciplines within which the Ph.D. would have been earned, namely “bioengineering, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related engineering discipline.” PO Resp. 6. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal as clarified by Patent Owner regarding the Ph.D. discipline.” slip op. at 7

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

    “At the outset, we agree with Patent Owner that the Specification purports to define “major peaks” in the following sentence: “The ‘major peaks’ herein refer to peaks higher than the average of the peaks in the result.” Ex. 1001, 13:28–29. We determine that this language satisfies at least two of the criteria set forth in Alnylam. Specifically, the sentence at “refers to” to explain what qualifies as major peaks. That is not the end of the inquiry, however, as we find there is still some ambiguity as to whether the patentee intended to define “major peaks” so as to require so-called “minor peaks” in the claimed invention. See Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1268 (“[T]he intrinsic evidence must ‘clearly set forth’ or ‘clearly redefine’ a claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.”). Importantly, the Specification does not treat the existence of minor peaks as prerequisites for the existence of major peaks. Indeed, the Specification does not discuss “minor peaks” at all. See generally Ex. 1001. Likewise, none of the claims of the ’227 patent, whether challenged or unchallenged, recites “minor peaks” or any additional peaks beyond the disputed “major peaks.” Id. at 23:30–24:42. Nor does the Specification include an example of FFT analysis results in which the average of the peaks therein is calculated and those higher than the average are identified as major peaks.8” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner has the better position. Huang2 teaches crosslinking and provides a reason for doing so (stability). In particular, Huang2 states: “To better mimic skin ECM, electrospun collagen fibers have been fabricated, however, the rapid degradation and poor mechanical properties determine that either crosslinking or combination with other materials is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold.” Ex. 1005, 1791 (emphasis added). It is true that, in describing work actually carried out, Huang2 states that blending with PCL was performed and does not mention crosslinking. See id. at 1792 (“Nanofibrous matrices of PCL and Collagen at a weight ratio of 3:1 were fabricated using electrospinning as previously described.”). However, the prior art – here, Huang2 – is not limited to that which it describes having created. See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (C.C.P.A. 1972) (“a reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples”); see also In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Huang2 teaches two stabilization methods when using collagen in scaffolds. Huang2 states that one or the other “is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold” (when using collagen), but it does not preclude or teach away from using Patent Owner-cited testimony of Dr. Mikos is not as definitive as Patent Owner suggests; Dr. Mikos’s testimony is that a person of ordinary skill in the art “typically would not have done both.” Ex. 2015 ¶64 (emphasis added). The bottom line is that Huang2 teaches the person of ordinary skill in the art two ways to stabilize scaffolds/matrices comprised of collagen, provides a reason for doing so (stability), and does not teach away from using both. We are persuaded that a “scaffold comprising crosslinked fibers comprising collagen” would have been obvious in view of the cited teachings of Huang2.” slip op. at 33

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

    “We are not persuaded by Appellant’s citations to either reference. As discussed above, Petitioner’s Ground 1 is premised on a person of ordinary skill in the art altering the native flat sheet structure of Huang2 by rolling it into a jelly-roll structure as taught by Kuo. See Pet. 41 (Beginning its claim 2 arguments with the following: “Claim 1 is obvious for the reasons expressed above in § X.A., supra, which are incorporated herein.”); see also Pet. Reply 17 (“[B]ased on the explicit teaching of Kuo, a POSA would have been motivated to take the electrospun flat scaffold made by the techniques of Huang2, seed it with the desired cells, and roll it to treat a tendon and ligament.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, the paragraphs of Kuo that Petitioner cites for disclosing “scaffold sheets,” explicitly describe rolling them into jelly-roll like structures. See Ex. 1018 ¶7 (stating that “the sheet is spirally contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct”), ¶22 (describing a method comprising “forming a tissue construct by contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct” and implanting it in a patient). Petitioner fails to argue that that “one or more elongated sheets” recited in claim 2 would encompass the rolled structure of its proposed modification. Nor does Petitioner articulate a claim construction argument that could support such an argument. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 2 would have been obvious over Huang2 and Kuo.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 11,318,227 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,318,227
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01169 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–20 are unpatentable over Thomas; claim 3 is not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 22–36 are unpatentable, and substitute claim 21 is not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “g) Conclusion—Claim 1 Based on the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that” slip op. at 28

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

    “g) Conclusion—Claim 1 Based on the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that” slip op. at 28

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

    “with the computer program 110.” Ex. 1005, 3:54–55. Thomas describes that (1) the “collected data is then stored in the database 130,” (2) the collected “data is stored in a data structure, generally referred to as a user’s profile,” and (3) the collected “data is logically linked to an event, or situation, that initiated the user’s input.” Id. at 3:56–61. Thomas describes creating or establishing a user profile by simulator 120 recording “the user’s decision/input” and storing “the user’s input in the field or sub-profile associated with the particular situation and/or event.” Id. at 4:67–5:5, Fig. 6. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing for element [1.3]. Also, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, we must consider what Thomas discloses rather than whether Thomas uses the exact claim term “instruction sets.” Cf. Gleave, 560 F.3d at 1334 (a reference does not have to satisfy an ipsis verbis test to disclose a claimed element). For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Thomas does not “mention instruction sets” or “anything related to an instruction set.” PO Resp. 36–37; PO Sur-reply 17.” slip op. at 42

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

    “C. Indefiniteness Petitioner argues that proposed substitute claims 22–36 are indefinite.” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 10,607,134 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,607,134
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 3, 2025 · IPR2023-01172 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 11–14, 16–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grotmol; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable because Grotmol does not disclose its required sequence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jason Janet. Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner “adopts” Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We also adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5

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

    “The parties appear to agree that the term “connection” refers to a relationship, but dispute whether it includes a link. PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 23. We need not resolve this claim construction issue in order to resolve the parties’ disputes about the asserted ground of unpatentability. Specifically, as discussed below, even if we assume for the purposes of this Decision that the term “connection” means a “relationship that includes a link,” the asserted prior art still discloses the disputed claim limitation. See Section II.D.23.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that claim 15 requires modifying the first instruction set before determining the modified first instruction set based on an at least partial match between the new digital picture and the first digital picture. Claim 15 recites “modifying: the first one or more instruction sets” and “determining the modified the first one or more instruction sets . . . based on the at least partial match between the new one or more digital pictures and the first one or more digital pictures.” Ex. 1001, 162:65–163:15 (emphasis added). The phrase “the modified . . . instruction sets” in the determining limitation indicates an order because it refers back to the instruction sets modified in the modifying limitation. Id. Further, the phrase “based on the at least partial match” indicates that a partial match between the new picture and the first picture returns the modified first instruction set. Id. In order for a partial match to return the modified first instruction set, it is logical that the first instruction set previously was modified and correlated to the first picture. Id. Thus, claim 15 indicates that the modifying limitation is performed before the determining limitation. See Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“First, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, [the recited steps] must be performed in the order written.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “3. Means-plus-function limitations Petitioner contends that the corresponding structure for the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more digital pictures,” the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device,” and the “means for learning the first one or more digital pictures correlated with the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device” in claim 34 is “one or more processor circuits.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:8–60). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 11. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for purposes of this Decision. D. Anticipation of Claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 by Grotmol Petitioner argues that claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 11,055,583 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 11,055,583
• Google LLC v. Nobots LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2023 · IPR2022-00940 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 and 20 are unpatentable; claims 18 and 19 were not shown unpatentable, because the asserted grounds failed to establish the required limitations for those claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’008 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field with coursework relating to computer science, plus two years’ academic and/or industry experience in computer security. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level of skill. PO Resp. 2. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “In considering Patent Owner’s explanation, and upon further reflection, we agree with Patent Owner’s reading of the pertinent sentence. In that regard, consistent with the remainder of the Specification of the ’008 patent, it follows that the noted sentence does not alter the contours of “acquired” data to also encompass “passive” data where that premise is entirely absent from other portions of the Specification. Rather, as Patent Owner explains, the sentence is consistent with the understanding that it is “active data” that is connected to the word “acquired” and “passive data” that is connected to the word “available.” See, e.g., id. Patent Owner’s explanation alleviates the ambiguity that was postulated in the Institution Decision. We have considered Petitioner’s views to the contrary (see, e.g., Pet. Reply 21–25) but find them unavailing. In particular, Petitioner does not reconcile its position that, although acknowledging that “acquired data” is defined in the ’008 patent, the term “acquiring” is not so defined and should be regarded as an “individual word” whose meaning is somehow entirely unconnected to “acquired.” See, e.g., Pet. Reply 21. We note, as we did in the Institution Decision, that the ’008 patent states that “acquired data” and “its equivalents and verb forms” is “a type of active data.” See Inst. Dec. 30 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:25–32). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s view (see, identifiable as a verb form of “acquired.” See PO Sur-reply 8. We determine that, in the context of the ’008 patent, it clearly is. Having considered the competing views of Petitioner and Patent Owner, we conclude that Patent Owner’s construction of the term “acquiring interest data” is consistent with, and supported by, the Specification of the ’008 patent. In that regard, we conclude that, as is advanced by Patent Owner, “acquiring interest data” must encompass the retrieval of some active data.” slip op. at 16

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

    “1–3 and 6–17 are found in Willner. Pet. 9–26. During trial, Patent Owner presented no arguments challenging Petitioner’s proposed ground of unpatentability of claims 1–3 and 6–17 based on Willner. During oral argument, upon questioning, counsel for Patent Owner expressed that “We did not present any arguments on Claims 1 to 3, 6 to 17 on Ground 1.” Tr. 30:3–4. We determine that Petitioner, via its Petition, has established adequately where all the features of claims 1–3 and 6–17 are present in Willner. See Pet. 9–26. Given that determination, and in the absence of any argument during trial challenging Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability based on Willner as to those claims, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3 and 6–17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Willner.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Here, we conclude that: (1) the parties’ recognized level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 4; PO Resp. 2); (2) the knowledge of a skilled artisan as set forth by record evidence, including the teachings of Willner and Kitts; and (3) the nature of the problem addressed in both of those references, i.e., click fraud detection, all support a determination that a skilled artisan would have had adequate reasons to combine Willner and Kitts, and would have had a reasonable expectation in doing so. To that end, we find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition as to the proposed reasoning to combine Willner and Kitts, and also credit Dr. Lopresti’s supporting testimony. See Pet. 28–29; Ex. 1003 ¶ 118. We are mindful of the contrasting testimony referenced by Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Russ. See, e.g., PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 107–110). Dr. Russ testifies that, in his view, there are “practical” and “technical” “considerations” in combining Willner and Kitts that a “POSA would have had to consider in determining whether a reasonable expectation of success exists, none of which are addressed or discussed in the Petition.” See Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 107–110. The example considerations listed by Dr. Russ are reproduced below: 1. How Kitts’ passive data could be collected and stored in conjunction with the mouse vector data already being collected by Willner; 2. How to collectively analyze fundamentally different types of data—Willner’s mouse vector data on one hand, and Kitts’ passive data on the other; 3. How to generate a useful confidence score that is more accurate than the scores already generated by Willner, again taking into consideration that passive data is a fundamentally different type of data than active data; assessment using the complex statistical model of Kitts; and 5. To what extent additional computer hardware would be necessary to enable the combined system to effectively operate and whether such hardware could be reasonably implemented, taking into consideration both cost and feasibility. Ex. 2011 ¶ 108. Those considerations are generally directed to collection and use of” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 9,595,008 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,595,008
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00359 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 32, 34, 37–38, 55–57, and 59 are unpatentable over Cunningham; claims 1, 3–8, 11–14, 24–31, 36, 42, 43, 46–49, 51–54, and 60–64 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “This argument is conclusory and not supported by sufficient evidence. Moreover, the stated conclusion is vague with respect to the limitation at issue. Petitioner argues that “the node 18 must translate messages” (id. (emphasis added)), but does not explicitly argue that all three recited pieces of information—“the select information, the transmitter identification information, and transceiver identification information”—must be translated. Even assuming Mason’s node must translate all three recited pieces of information, Petitioner does not show that all such translated pieces of information must be further transmitted to the AMR server over the WAN. In particular, Petitioner does not show that transceiver identification information would have to be further transmitted.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that such a construction is “non- specific, vague and unhelpful” in the context of the ’692 patent. Reply. 16. Patent Owner’s construction limits “low power” to signals having a “limited transmission range,” but provides no guidance of what “limited” means, or what its boundaries might be. Petitioner argues correctly that Patent Owner’s construction fails to address questions its proposed construction raises, such as, what a ‘limited’ transmission range means and how ‘limited’ the range must be (i.e., what the range’s distance should be), whether the transmission range depends on the particular system or application, and whether other factors should be considered in determining whether the transmission range is limited.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Notably, Petitioner says these contentions are “further evidence” but does not explain how this evidence is to be used to buttress Cunningham’s disclosure or how it is to be combined with Cunningham’s disclosure. Specifically, given the limited contentions in the Petition detailed above, Petitioner does not explain how Energy Management Services or the “routines” described in the Provisional send control signals from the computer to the actuator as required by the claims. For example, even if we to accept that the “Williams Network Control Center” creates control signals as required by the claim Petitioner has not explained how those signals are translated from network transfer protocol to RF signals and then translated to an analog signal that can be used at an actuator. Even though the ’978 Provisional is allegedly incorporated by reference, an obviousness determination still requires--“[w]hether a [obviousness challenge] is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference[--] a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.” In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n. 1 (Fed. Cir. 2017); c.f. Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding obviousness shown despite fact that “all of the limitations are found in two separate embodiments pictured side by side in the patent, not in one embodiment” because the party showed motivation to combine and reasonable likelihood of success). Additionally, “there must be evidence presented on the obviousness of the claim as a whole.” Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 420, 127 S.Ct. 1727); see also Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., 903 F.3d 1310, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The determination of obviousness is made with respect to the subject matter as a whole, not separate pieces of the claim”). Here, the “routines” described in the ’978 Provisional work differently than the “utility prices” embodiment of Cunningham. Petitioner has not explained how those would work together to meet the claim limitations.” slip op. at 30

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is inapposite, as it is premised on reading a limitation into the claims, namely that the information encoded in the RF signal must be translated in real time. Further, we agree with Petitioner, that even under such an erroneously narrow construction, Cunningham would meet the limitation. In that regard, Petitioner argues that, “although Cunningham discloses sending cumulative data readings, individual signals from the sensor are identified by the gateway and this information is then transmitted (with transmitter identification information) to a computer on the WAN.” Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶31–32; Ex. 1004, 31:6–28). Petitioner argues, and we are persuaded, that “Cunningham explains that the ‘most current cumulative reading’ is the current absolute ‘reading’ (i.e., information signal) from the sensor (Ex. 1004, 13:44–46) and that two cumulative readings can be used to ‘interpolate’ and ‘recover’ a missed reading (i.e., a signal from the sensor).” Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1004, 13:44–56; 31:6–27; Pet. 75; Ex. 1002 ¶¶115, 152; Ex. 1046 ¶32). We are persuaded that Cunningham discloses this limitation. Lastly, claim 32 also recites “a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and stores select information responsive to the electrical signal for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device.” To meet this limitation, Petitioner accurately points out that “Cunningham discloses that[,] in response to receiving information from the sensor interface module through the data collection modules, the host module compiles the information into a user specified readable format and stores it for later retrieval upon demand from a customer computer or workstation.” Pet. 83 (citing Ex. 1004, 7:19–27, 44:12–41, 44:53–64, 46:44–61, 47:44–54, Ex. 1002 ¶¶138–140). Patent Owner does not contest that Cunningham discloses “a computer configured to execute at least one computer program that formats and stores select information responsive to the electrical signal for retrieval upon demand from a remotely located device.” See PO Resp. 22–29, 41–46. We are persuaded that Cunningham discloses this limitation. For the forgoing reasons, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 6,437,692 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,437,692
• Google LLC / Microsoft Corporation et al. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 6, 2018 · IPR2017-00447 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over SMIL 1.0 and SMIL 1.0 with Hua; claims 12–16 were not shown unpatentable, and anticipation was not established for claims 1–7 and 9–13.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or computer engineering, or the equivalent” and “3-5 years’ experience developing multimedia presentations using a markup language and/or developing software tools to automate the development of multimedia presentations, or equivalent academic experience (e.g., a master’s degree with a similar focus).” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 23). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 10. Patent Owner also does not provide its own definition. See id. Based on the evidence of record, including the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent and the asserted prior art, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 15; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–23.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Ex. 1001, 5:54–55, 6:29–30. Petitioner proposes construing the phrase “a given segment of [a/the] media presentation” to mean “part or all of the media presentation.” Pet. 19. Petitioner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the claim language and specification of the ’806 patent. Id. at 17–19. Patent Owner proposes construing the phrase “a given segment of [a/the] media presentation” to mean “a media presentation with multiple segments.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the claim language and specification of the ’806 patent. Id. The dispute between the parties focuses on whether a media presentation can consist of only a single file or must have multiple segments. Pet. 17–19; PO Resp. 11. The ’806 patent consistently uses the term “segment” to indicate that a media presentation is divided into multiple segments. Ex. 1001, Abstract (“An electronic file, e.g., an MP3 file, is partitioned into a sequence of segments at the server side.”), 1:65–66 (“To this end the content file is split into multiple parts. Each part or segment requires a relatively short download time.”), 2:60–62, 2:67–3:2, 3:14–16, 3:31–33, 4:15–26 (“The segmentation of the content file into separately downloadable segments . . . .”), 4:35–38, Fig. 1. In contrast, the ’806 patent does not use the term “segment” to refer to a media presentation that consists of only a single file. Id. at 2:7–9. Therefore, because Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the specification of the ’806 patent, we construe the phrase “a given segment of [a/the] media presentation” to mean “a media presentation with multiple segments.”4” slip op. at 7

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

    “constraints.” Ex. 1001, 5:57, 6:33. Petitioner proposes construing the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints” to mean “constraints upon a system.” Pet. Reply 9. Petitioner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the specification of the ’806 patent. Id. at 9–11. Patent Owner proposes construing the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints” to mean “constraints on a system imposed by resources.” PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner argues that its proposed construction is supported by the specification of the ’806 patent. Id. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1 and 9 are unpatentable even if we apply Patent Owner’s narrower proposed construction of the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints.” See infra Sections II.D.2, II.D.10. Therefore, we determine that it is unnecessary to resolve the parties’ dispute regarding the meaning of the terms “system restraints” and “system constraints” in order to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability in this case. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms 4 Our construction is consistent with the District Court’s determination that the term “media presentation” means “data having multiple segments.” Ex. 1014, 7. need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “3. Means-Plus-Function Limitations Claim 12 recites several limitations that begin with the phrase “means for.” Ex. 1001, 6:41–62. The parties agree that these limitations of claim 12 are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 19–20; PO Supp. Resp. 1–2. We address the means-plus-function limitations of claim 12 in detail below. See infra Sections II.C.2, II.D.13.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 7,529,806 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,529,806
• Old Republic General Insurance Group, Inc. / Old Republic Insurance Company et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2017 · IPR2015-01992 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–12, 14–24, and 34–48 are unpatentable over the stated grounds; claims 3 and 13 were not shown unpatentable, and claims 25–33 and 49 were disclaimed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “On February 8, 2017, Patent Owner informed the Board that it had “disclaimed claims 25–33 and 49” of the ’002 patent, thereby “rendering the institution of claims 25–33 and 49 in the subject inter partes review proceeding moot.” Paper 18, 1; Ex. 2005 (disclaimer of claims 25–33 and 49 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a)).” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenMixed

    “2. Analysis To anticipate a claim a “prior art reference must disclose each and every feature of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., 471 F.3d 1369, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An inherent disclosure may be found when an asserted prior art reference “necessarily” includes the unstated limitation. Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner has identified where each limitation of independent claim 1 is disclosed in Huang. Claims 11, 34, and 40 contain limitations similar to claim 1, Petitioner provides detailed arguments as to where each limitation of these claims is disclosed in Huang, and Patent Owner does not present any arguments for these claims separate from those 7 At oral argument, Patent Owner asserted that we should not consider Petitioner’s argument that the icons of Huang contain URL information because this argument was presented for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply. Tr. 32:19–35:5. Patent Owner did not file a motion to exclude this evidence, however, or request a sur-reply to address any allegedly new issues raised for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply. Id. at 34:18–23. Nor is it evident why Petitioner’s arguments are not appropriate rebuttal arguments addressing Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “pointer.” Accordingly, we decline to exclude Petitioner’s URL arguments and evidence.” slip op. at 15

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

    “be used in conjunction with the mobile interface agent, including “a computer, cable set top box, cellular phone, or other device.” Ex. 1001, 4:44–45. Patent Owner does not explain why the description of a “pointer” in one “context,” i.e., on a computer or PDA, represents a clear and deliberate attempt to define the term in all contexts, such that all pointers must be a “reference” to “a type of menu item” and be “accessible on a computer, PDA, or server.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (noting that an inventor is “free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention,” but “this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision”). The broadest definition of the term “pointer” in the ’002 patent is “a link/shortcut to an item.” Ex. 1001, 10:8–10 (“As discussed above, a pointer is a link/shortcut to an item such as . . . .”); Dec. on Inst. 10. This definition is consistent with the description of “pointers” in the ’002 patent written description and claims. Ex. 1001, 20:4–6 (“wherein the pointers provide links to access the corresponding user specific resources and information.”). Accordingly, we construe “pointer” to mean “a link or shortcut to an item.”” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 6,546,002 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,546,002
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00374 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as anticipated by Bace and Denning; claims 7 and 8 were not shown unpatentable because neither reference disclosed determining the likelihood of observing a feature.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’306 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’306 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 24. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 8. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 7–8. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case.” slip op. at 5

  • BurdenMixed

    “determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace discloses determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 7. Pet. 30–32; Pet. Reply 14–15; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 30–32; Pet. Reply 14–15; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’306 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Bace specifies that certain information sources are used for a computer system with a Windows operating system. Namely, Bace discloses that, for a Windows computer system, “security log events are the primary focus of intrusion detection systems,” and “especially those having to do with the creation, deletion, and alteration of system files and other 3 Patent Owner suggests that this portion of Bace only relates to the system call records gathered by UNIX system audit trails. Paper 48 ¶¶ 3–5. Section 3.2.4 of Bace, however, describes the advantages of operating system audit trails generally, not just UNIX system audit trails. Ex. 1007, 70. objects.” Id. at 74–75 (emphases added). Bace then explains that the reference data obtained from the Windows computer system is used to generate the anomaly detection models discussed later in Bace. Ex. 1007, 109 (“Anomaly detectors are populated by running them against the collected reference event data.”); id. at 74–75, 121–122; Ex. 1003 ¶ 112. Thus, for a Windows computer system, Bace expressly links the reference data obtained by monitoring the creation, deletion, and alteration of system files with the disclosed anomaly detection models. Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 15–19; cf. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that the prior art did not link two distinct teachings). Bace further discloses that Denning’s anomaly detection model, which includes the mean and standard deviation model, is the “seminal” anomaly detection model. Ex. 1007, 108, 121–122. As a result, Bace provides a specific reason for selecting Denning’s anomaly detection model from among the other models disclosed in Bace. Ex. 1003 ¶ 111; Ex. 1029 ¶ 19. c. Summary For the reasons discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by Bace.” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Here, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s Reply exceeds the scope of a proper reply because it presents a new theory of unpatentability for claim 7 based on the TIM system in Bace that is not included in the Petition. PO Mot. Str. 2–3. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that its Reply is proper because the Petition relies on the TIM system in Bace with respect to claim 8, and, thus slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,913,306 mixed
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,913,306
• Ubisoft, Inc. / Ubisoft Entertainment SA v. Guitar Apprentice, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 1, 2016 · IPR2015-00298 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 17, 18, and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Lee and Epstein; claims 9–12, 14, and 16 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “limitations in claim 9 are similar to the limitation at issue in Williamson. Specifically, the “proficiency sensing module” and “mode control module” limitations are in a format consistent with traditional means-plus-function limitations. Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 40–53; see Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. Each limitation replaces the term “means” with the term “module,” and recites certain functions performed by the module. Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 40– 53; see Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. The word “module” by itself does not provide any indication of structure. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350–51; PO Brief 3 (“Thus, the module, like most computing elements, are a combination of relatively generic computer hardware coupled with software.”). Further, neither party argues specifically or identifies evidence indicating that the prefixes “proficiency sensing” and “mode control” impart structure into the term “module.” See Pet. Brief 2; PO Brief 5–6; Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350–51. Patent Owner argues that the claim language imparts structure by reciting the input and output of each module. PO Brief 5–6; Tr. 25:7–14. The functions recited in claim 9, however, only describe certain inputs and outputs at a very high level (e.g., receiving signals from a guitar and comparing the received signals to expected signals). Ex. 1001, col. 10, ll. 40–53; see Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351. The ’849 patent explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would conceive of numerous structural means” for performing the recited functions of the “proficiency sensing module” and the “mode control module.” Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 19–28; see id. at col. 3, ll. 58–67. As a result, the functions recited in claim 9 for the “proficiency sensing module” and the “mode control module” do not connote sufficiently definite structure. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351. Therefore, we determine that the “proficiency sensing module” and “mode control module” limitations in claim 9 are means-plus-function limitations under § 112 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Patent Owner argues that Lee does not disclose the above limitation of claims 1 and 17, because the system in Lee does not define the number of user segments in a subsequent iteration of a musical performance based on a user proficiency level determined from a previous iteration of the musical performance. PO Resp. 5–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 106, 161, 183). Specifically, Patent Owner argues that, in Lee, “the user, not the system,” selects the difficulty level (and thus the number of user segments) for a subsequent session. PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 183). Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. Lee discloses that “when the difficulty level of a musical piece is set to a low level, the user may be required to play only one out of every N 1 Lee discloses maintaining the number of musical events played by the user, as required by claim 17. Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 165, 173, 174; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 32–34. musical events, where N>1,” and, “[a]s the user progresses and gains skill from session to session, the value of N may be gradually reduced to 1” at which point “the user may be required to correctly play each of N musical events.”2 Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 173, 174 (emphasis added). Thus, Lee discloses a system that defines the number of user segments in a subsequent session based on the user’s proficiency level in a previous session. Id. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Michael Zyda, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art reading Lee would have known that the system can adjust the number of user segments from session to session, as described in paragraphs 173 and 174 of Lee, without input from the user.3 Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 25, 29, 30.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “2 As discussed above, Lee discloses that the term “musical piece” refers to a song or musical composition, and the term “musical event” refers to a note or chord in the musical piece. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30, 31, 58. 3 Dr. Zyda testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, physics, mathematics, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience, in addition to one to two years of software programming experience. Ex. 1006 ¶ 17. Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Zyda’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and we adopt that level of ordinary skill in the art in this case. discussed above, though, the evidence indicates that the system disclosed in Lee also can adjust the number of user segments from session to session without input from the user. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 173, 174; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 25, 29, 30.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,586,849 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,586,849
• C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2015 · IPR2014-00727 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–19, 21, 22, 24–29, 31, and 33–37 are unpatentable as obvious over Betts; claims 8, 20, 30, and 38 were not shown unpatentable over Betts and the Orange Book.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The term “enclosure unit” encompasses lavatories, aircraft closets, and aircraft galleys. Given the grounds of unpatentability that Petitioner raises, there is no need to further construe this term. 2. “lavatory stall unit” Whereas independent claim 1 recites “enclosure unit,” independent claim 9 recites “lavatory stall unit.” Patent Owner proposes the latter be construed as “a single room, enclosed on all sides, having a toilet and washbasin and large enough to fit a person inside.” PO Resp. 12. For reasons similar to those with respect to “enclosure unit,” we reject Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “lavatory stall unit.” Further, given the grounds of unpatentability that Petitioner raises, there is no need to provide an express construction for this term. More specifically, Petitioner does not rely on any particular prior art lavatory. Indeed, Petitioner does not rely on either of the asserted references to teach a “lavatory stall unit,” instead relying on the knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “These proposed constructions would render the claim language “in a vertical plane” meaningless because tilting a seatback between an upright position and another position would have no effect on the shape of the aft surface of the seatback. Therefore, we do not adopt them. See Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (proposed construction that rendered a portion of the claim language meaningless held improper). Rather, we construe “in a vertical plane” according to its ordinary and customary meaning and consistent with the specification, which contrasts a forward wall in a vertical plane (see Fig. 1—the prior art) against a recessed forward wall (see Fig. 2—an embodiment of the claimed invention). In sum, the full limitation at issue encompasses an aft portion (in the case of claim 1) and an aft portion with an exterior aft surface (in the case of claims 9, 21, and 31) that has a flat shape but which is not within a vertical plane. This is within the broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification, which discloses a substantially conforming recessed forward wall positioned behind the seat (see Ex. 1001, Fig. 2), as opposed to a wall that is flat in a vertical plane (see id. at Fig. 1). 4. “forward wall portion is shaped to substantially conform to the shape of the” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “As discussed below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–19, 21, 22, 24–29, 31, and 33–37 of the ’838 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Betts. But, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8, 20, 30, and 38 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Betts and the Orange Book, as Petitioner has not established that the evidence relied upon within the Orange Book is a printed publication.” slip op. at 3

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

    “motivated to efficiently use space on an aircraft, as evidenced by Betts, “to provide more room for passengers.” Id. ¶ 65 (quoting Ex. 1003, 1:6–7). Mr. Anderson further testifies that Betts teaches the person of ordinary skill in the art a recessed forward wall configuration that uses space more efficiently than a flat configuration, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the recessed configuration to other aircraft enclosures, including lavatories. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been discouraged from attempting to tailor Betts’ divided space design to any lavatory stall unit (or any other enclosure unit) because Betts required separate enclosures divided both functionally and spatially.” PO Resp. 29. But, Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability is not premised on whether it would have been practical or possible to convert Bett’s “divided space” (i.e., its overhead coat compartment and floor luggage space) into a lavatory. Rather, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to apply Bett’s recessed forward wall design to other aircraft enclosures, including a lavatory. Pet. 19 (“One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the McDonnell Douglas patent [i.e., Betts] are equally applicable to the forward walls of other enclosure units, such as lavatories or galleys.”) (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 65–68); cf. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“Etter’s assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the 15 features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 8,590,838 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,590,838

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.