• Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2023 · IPR2019-00731 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Remand

  Claim 28 is unpatentable under § 103(a) over Martin and Farley; Martin qualifies as prior art because Dr. Moran’s contribution made him a joint inventor of the relied-on disclosure.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “we do not agree with Patent Owner that evidence analogous to that in Duncan Parking is required in this case or for Petitioner to meet its burden by stating which specific aspects of the Facilitator were conceived by Dr. Moran. PO Remand 3–4. As the Federal Circuit stated, the facilitator described in Section 4.5 of the Martin reference plays a central role in the OAA disclosed in the specification of the ’560 patent. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; see Ex. 1011, 23–24 (Section 4.5); Ex. 1001, 19:14–19:62. In addition, Patent Owner admits that “large portions of the ’560 application and the Martin reference are identical or almost identical.” PO Resp. 1. We find that Petitioner and Dr. Moran have sufficiently identified the facilitator in the Martin reference as his work, and persuasively asserted that Dr. Moran’s background and experience with OAA and distributed software systems support his contribution to the conception of the facilitator in the distributed agent approach of Sections 4.1–4.5. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23–39. Dr. Moran’s testimony provides sufficient and persuasive detail to support his contribution claim to the facilitator of Section 4.5. Id.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to Dr. Moran’s contribution to the Martin reference, we find Dr. Moran’s testimony credible over that of Mr. Cheyer and Mr. Martin, because, as the Federal Circuit noted, because the latter testimony conflicts with other evidence of record. Google, 34 F.4th at 1088. Cheyer’s and Martin’s testimony that Dr. Moran’s role was administrative and non-technical with respect to the core infrastructure of OAA is belied by a separate article describing OAA that includes the facilitator and lists Dr. Moran as the lead author. Ex. 1174, 1–2, 4. Indeed, the OAA article lists Dr. Moran and Mr. Cheyer as authors but excludes Mr. Martin. Id. Although Mr. Cheyer disagrees with the article’s description of the origins of OAA and the facilitator (Ex. 2037, 78:23–79:12 (Mr. Cheyer asserting that he “would not agree in the characterization of Open Agent Architecture grew out of [earlier] works” as described in the article)), Mr. Cheyer admits patent]” (id. at 1088), “which is a continuation-in-part of the application that resulted in the ’115 patent” (id. at 1086). in his deposition that Dr. Moran was extremely technical, and probably made technical contributions to OAA (id. at 34:1–20, 64:16–20, 102:2–4). Similarly, Mr. Martin’s testimony also supports that Dr. Moran “may have made contributions to the technological development of either interfaces for use with OAA, agents used with OAA, or systems based on OAA.” Ex. 2038, 116:2–8, 117:7–119:10. When viewed in light of Dr. Moran’s status as a joint inventor on the closely related ’931 patent (Ex. 2002, code (75)) and as a lead author of the substantive paper that discusses OAA’s early development, we find Mr. Martin’s and Mr. Cheyer’s admissions—that Dr. Moran made technical contributions to OAA—undermine their testimony that Dr. Moran’s inclusion as an author on the Martin reference was a matter of administrative respect and not a result of a technical contribution. See PO Remand 11; PO Resp. 50–51. Indeed, we find Cheyer and Martin’s general description of Dr. Moran—as an administrator without technical contributions to the Martin reference—is not supported by the full record, which instead supports Dr. Moran’s contributions to technical work that involves the Martin reference, such as contemporary papers and the ’931 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1174, 2002. In sum, the testimony and contemporary evidence supports Dr. Moran’s testimony that his conception and contribution to the Martin reference, the facilitator, was technical and not merely administrative. Ex. 1007 ¶ 39.” slip op. at 23

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention. Rather, we find that the Petition persuasively explains how Martin discloses a facilitator agent arranged to coordinate cooperative task completion within a distributed computing environment having autonomous service-providing electronic agents. Pet. 39; Ex. 1002 ¶ 100. Further, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that Farley discloses how agent functionality can be distributed across multiple processes. Pet. 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 101–102. Finally, Petitioner also provides persuasive reasons as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Martin and Farley, including reasons expressly provided by Farley. Pet. 40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–104.” slip op. at 28

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE In our prior Final Written Decision, we denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) portions of Exhibit 1153; (2) Exhibits 1170, 1171, and 1172; (3) Exhibit 1174; and (4) portions of Exhibits 2037 and 2038; and we dismissed as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) Exhibits 1158 and 1159 and (2) Exhibits 1175, 1176, and 1181. Final Dec. 26–30. We maintain these determinations on remand.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,069,560 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,069,560
• Laltitude LLC, Dba Picasso Tiles v. Altus Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00155 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  The sole challenged claim was held unpatentable as anticipated by Zhao US and Zhao CN; the Board did not reach the three obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “same as that used for infringement, except that for anticipation, the patented design is compared with the alleged anticipatory reference rather than an accused design. Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1238, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The ordinary observer test for design patent infringement was first enunciated by the Supreme Court in Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871), as follows: [I]f, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other. Id. at 528. The ordinary observer test requires the fact finder to consider all of the ornamental features illustrated in the figures that are visible at any time in the “normal use” lifetime of the accused product, i.e., “from the completion of manufacture or assembly until the ultimate destruction, loss, or disappearance of the article.” Int’l Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1241. Further, while the ordinary observer test requires consideration of the overall prior art and claimed designs, [t]he mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copies of one another. Just as “minor differences between a patented design and an accused article’s design cannot, and shall not, prevent a finding of infringement” . . . so too minor differences cannot prevent a finding of anticipation. Id. at 1243 (citation omitted) (quoting Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (1984)).” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS D719,138 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2021 · IPR2019-01195 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13 and 14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kim; claims 17, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Kim and Lee because the proposed combination was inadequately explained.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “’026 patent would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, plus at least two years of experience in integrated circuit design, or alternatively a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of experience in integrated circuit design. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 49). In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 15. Neither Patent Owner, in its Response, nor Dr. Annavaram, in his declaration, proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, Patent Owner states that “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s stated skill level for this response” (PO Resp. 26), and Dr. Annavaram similarly states that “[f]or the purpose of this declaration, I adopt Dr. Harris’ definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” (Ex. 2009 ¶ 24). Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Based on the complete record, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, plus at least two years of experience in integrated circuit design, or alternatively a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of experience in integrated circuit design. Inst. Dec. 15; see Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 49).” slip op. at 10

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

    “To the extent Patent Owner argues that these particularized selection clauses recited in different claims must have the same or similar meaning because they all use the word “selecting” (see PO Resp. 28–29), we disagree with Patent Owner. See IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We caution that claim language must be construed in the context of the claim in which it appears. Extracting a single word from a claim divorced from the surrounding limitations can lead construction astray. Claim language must be construed in the claim in which it appears.” (emphasis added)). The selection clauses recited in these claims are plainly different on the face of the claims when considering the material differences in the claim language set forth above. According the same meaning to the limitations that recite “select . . . based on” indicators, “select . . . when” certain conditions are met, and “select . . . out of a group” of values would be improper because it would blur the material differences in the claim language recited expressly in the claims. Instead, we interpret the selection clauses recited in the challenged claims “in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears” and “in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. In other words, we do not construe the single word “selecting” in isolation, but, rather, interpret the full selection clauses recited in the challenged claims in the context of the entire patent. Claim 13 recites “selecting, by the control circuit, a value of a control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator.” In our view, the plain meaning of this limitation is clear on the face of the claim—a value of a control signal is selected based on two indicators, the mode indicator and the leakage indicator.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Tr. 47:7–23. Because the output of Kim’s NAND gates will be different depending on the value of Kim’s memory cells C1–CN allowed to “pass through,” we agree with Petitioner that the value of Kim’s memory cells C1– CN (the claimed “leakage indicator”) “plays a role” in deciding what the output of Kim’s NAND gates (the claimed “value of the control signal”) will be. Moreover, Patent Owner acknowledged that the output of Kim’s NAND gate is determined based on the inputs to the NAND gates (i.e., the sleep signal input and the memory cell signal input). JUDGE CHUNG: But, knowing a little bit about how a NAND gate works, isn’t it the case that the input to the NAND gates, G1 through GN, with the input of the sleep signal and the C1 through CN signal, isn’t it the case that input to the NAND gate determines what the output is? MS. ZHONG: Okay. So any logic gate, the output will depend on the input. That’s for sure. Tr. 44:18–25; but see id. at 45:3–10 (stating that even if the “output is in control of the input, . . . that does not mean the selection is based on that input”). Thus, we find that Kim’s NAND gate (the claimed “control circuit”) operates to determine its output (the claimed “value of the control signal”) based on its input of the sleep signal (the claimed “mode indicator”) and the memory cell value input (the claimed “leakage indicator”). As discussed in Section III.B, the Specification indicates that “select[ing] the value of the control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator” recited in claim 13 is synonymous to determining the value based on the recited indicators. See Ex. 1101, 4:4–11. Thus, the evidence of record shows that Kim teaches “selecting, by the control circuit, a value of a control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator,” as recited in claim 13.” slip op. at 44

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence. First, although Petitioner proposes “[s]ubstituting Lee’s inputs of leakage current and temperature for generating a power gate control signal” (i.e., Lee’s “control signal (BIAS)”) for “Kim’s inputs of leakage current and other ‘stimuli’ for generating a power gate control signal” (Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 115)), neither Petitioner nor Dr. Harris explains adequately how they are proposing to “substitute” Kim’s control signal with Lee’s “control signal (BIAS).” For example, Figure A reproduced above does not show how Petitioner or Dr. Harris proposes to use Lee’s “control signal (BIAS)” in the proposed combination. Petitioner asserts that “[a]lthough Lee’s control signal is analog and Kim’s control signal is digital, it was well known to apply teachings in an analog domain to a digital domain, and conversions between analog and digital domains were easy to implement.” Pet. 66 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 121; Ex. 1115). Dr. Harris similarly states that Figures A and B show examples of obvious ways to use in Kim’s system Lee’s teaching of setting conductance of the array based on temperature. A POSA would have found both of these ways obvious. That Lee uses an analog control signal and Kim uses a digital control signal would have presented no obstacle to a POSA. . . . That is, converting analog circuit elements and signals to digital was well known long before the ’026 patent. Ex. 1102 ¶ 121 (emphases added) (citing (Ex. 1115) (“Analog-to-digital converters (ADC’s) are ubiquitous, critical components of software radio and other signal processing systems.”)). But Dr. Harris does not explain adequately how “to use in Kim’s system” the digitized BIAS signal of Lee. See id. The only additional input signal shown in Figure A compared to Figure 4 of Kim is the temperature line that has the value of 0 when the temperature is cold and the value of 1 when the temperature is hot. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 116 (Fig. A). There is no explanation of how the modified teaching of the BIAS signal of Lee (i.e., modified or converted to a digital signal) would have worked in the proposed combination of Figure A.” slip op. at 69

  Patent outcomesUS 8,081,026 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,081,026
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01033 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and claims 1 and 17 are obvious over Bednar and Gunther; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,004,922 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’922 patent”). VLSI Technology LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims. Paper 17 (“Inst. Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or an equivalent subject), together with three years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits.” Inst. Dec. 8–9; see Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 9

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

    “construction of “memory device,” specifically whether it encompasses a latch. Neither party argues that “memory device” is expressly defined in the ’922 patent. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controls. And, the standard under which we construe the term is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” slip op. at 45

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

    “preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and (2) claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar and Gunther. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 1 is anticipated by Bednar or (2) claims 4–6, 18, and 19 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar, Gunther, and Willingham. The chart below summarizes our conclusions.” slip op. at 91

  Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,004,922
• Fredman Bros. Furniture Company, Inc. v. Bedgear, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00352 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–18, and 20–24 are unpatentable: Rasmussen anticipates claims 1, 4–6, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18, 22, and 23; the remaining challenged claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction’ as used herein refers to a construction having overall porosity greater than the inherent porosity of the constituent material or inherently having high porosity.” Ex. 1049, 1:37–40. Based on the full record, we agree with parties that “open cell construction” is defined in the specification, and we interpret it in accordance with that definition to mean “a construction having overall porosity greater than the inherent porosity of the constituent material or inherently having high porosity.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.”).” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively working in the field.” Jacobson Bros., Inc. v. U.S., 512 F.2d 1065, 1071 (Ct. Cl. 1975); see also Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting with approval Jacobson Bros.). We find, based on our review of the record before us, that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the record’s indication of “the various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those actively working in the field.” See, e.g., Pet. 7–12 (“Technology Background”); PO Resp. 3–4 (“Background of the Relevant Technology at the Time of the ’134 Patent”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 2–4; Ex. 1008; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 3–6; Ex. 1044; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 36–54. We resolve any differences in favor of including “several years of industry experience in applying the moisture and heat transfer properties of materials” as part of “at least one year of experience in the design of pillows and other sleep-related textile products” of a person holding a “bachelor’s degree in textile science, textile engineering, or a similar field.” See Rhodes Decl. ¶ 5 (“I am also an adjunct professor . . . teaching . . . an entry level course for textile and fashion majors.”), ¶ 6 (“I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Textile Design.”), ¶ 70 (“I met at least these minimum qualifications to be a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention.”); Ex. 1062 ¶ 4 (“I teach concepts relating to moisture and heat transfer in my textile curriculum in my academic role as a professor”). Therefore, we apply Petitioner’s definition, quoted above, in our analysis of the challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 15–16.” slip op. at 58

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Based on the full record, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Rasmussen’s “highly porous” “3D textile material” discloses the open cell construction of claim 1. Also, even if Rasmussen uses the “3D textile” broadly, the full record persuades us that Rasmussen discloses the limitations of claim 1. PO Resp. 4, 12–28; Rhodes Decl. ¶ 117; Ex. 1006 ¶ 29; Ex. 1007 ¶ 25; Parachuru Decl. ¶ 93. Also, our interpretation of the limitations of claim 1 does not require modifying or transforming a constituent base material. Patent Owner also responds that “Petitioner never even argues that the ‘interlaced,’ ‘spaced-apart,’ or ‘mesh’ strand structures are inherent from Rasmussen’s disclosure of 3-D textiles.” PO Resp. 55. Patent Owner states that “both parties’ experts acknowledge that 3D textiles, as well as highly porous 3D textiles, can have multiple possible configurations other than the ones recited in the claims,” and thus, Rasmussen does not disclose inherently the claimed structures. Id. at 55–57 (citing Parachuru Decl. ¶¶ 67–73, 92– 94, 158–160, 168–169; Ex. 2016, 15:23–16:7, 31:21–32:6, 36:3–7, 36:14– 18, 37:7–21, 49:4–12, 50:15–51:12, 52:19–53:3, 123:7–23, 135:23–136:24). The record, however, indicates that “highly porous” “3D textile material” has “interlaced strands or spaced-apart strands,” as argued by Petitioner and as required by claim 1. For the above reasons, Petitioner persuades us by a preponderance of the evidence that Rasmussen anticipates claim 1 based on disclosures related to its core.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,646,134 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,646,134
• Fredman Bros. Furniture Company, Inc. v. Bedgear, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00351 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12–15, and 17–20 are unpatentable: Rasmussen anticipates the challenged claims, and Rasmussen combined with Doak, Mason, or Burton renders claims 5, 6, 12, and 19 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • 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’s statement that the claim language “does not address (i.e., require or restrict) air entering through a structure other than a panel (e.g., a gusset) nor does it address any such air exiting the pillow in a particular manner (e.g., through a panel, gusset, or other structure).” See PO Resp. 47. The claim language requires “at least some air which enters through the panels” exits through the gusset alone or in combination with another structure. See id. The portions of the specification cited by Patent Owner support its above-quoted statement because the cited portions describe that the pillow allows lateral ventilation, gusset 20 provides venting, gusset 20 permits air exchange, and the panels can be made of open cell construction. See PO Resp. 48–49; Ex. 1047, 1:37–40, 2:12–15, 4:34–36, 4:56–58. Further interpretation is not required for determining whether Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence the unpatentability of claim 1. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing explicitly only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

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

    “The specification of the ’883 patent states that an “‘open cell construction’ as used herein refers to a construction having overall porosity greater than the inherent porosity of the constituent material or inherently having high porosity.” Ex. 1047, 1:44–47. Based on the full record, we agree with parties that “open cell construction” is defined in the specification, and we interpret it in accordance with that definition to mean “a construction having overall porosity greater than the inherent porosity of the constituent material or inherently having high porosity.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.”).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Based on the full record, we concur with the parties that an express interpretation for “gusset” is not necessary for determining whether Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenge claims are unpatentable. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. We also determine that express interpretation of any other claim term is not necessary. See id.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner also argues that the claims of the ’883 patent are not entitled to a priority date before June 22, 2012. Pet. 24. Petitioner argues that Rasmussen (Ex. 1006) is § 102(b) prior art, if the challenged claims are entitled only to a priority date of June 22, 2012. Petitioner alternatively argues that a provisional application (Ex. 1007, to which Rasmussen claims priority, see Ex. 1006, [30]) is § 102(e) prior art, if the challenged claims are entitled to the earlier priority date of June 22, 2011. Pet. 24. Petitioner, thus, provides parallel citations to Rasmussen and the provisional application, which Petitioner asserts is identical to Rasmussen. Pet. 24 n.1; Ex. 1057 (comparison of Rasmussen and its provisional). As discussed below, the full record persuades us that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 7–10, 13–15, 17, 18, and 20 are anticipated by Rasmussen under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or § 102(e).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,015,883 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,015,883
• Fredman Bros. Furniture Company, Inc. v. Bedgear, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00350 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11, 13, 15–22, 24, 25, and 27–34 are unpatentable; claim 23 was not shown unpatentable, because the Rasmussen anticipation challenge failed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not persuaded us that claim 23 is” slip op. at 62

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not persuaded us that claim 23 is” slip op. at 62

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,887,332 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,887,332
• Campbell Soup Company / Campbell Sales Company et al. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 27, 2018 · IPR2017-00096 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  The sole claim is unpatentable under § 102 over Pendergrast and under § 103 over Pendergrast alone or with Knott.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Manufacturing, L.L.C. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an inter partes review of the claim for “[t]he ornamental design for a gravity feed dispenser display” in U.S. Patent No. D595,074 (“the ’074 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Gamon Plus, Inc. (“Gamon” or “Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter partes review of the challenged claim. Paper 9 (“Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “[A] design[er] of ordinary skill in the field of the ’074 Patent would have been a person with a background or familiarity with commercial dispensers, and particularly dispensers for consumer commodities such as cans, bottles, or small packaged items. . . . The designer of ordinary skill would also have a basic understanding of physics and or mechanics, which may include practical experience in the field of studying consumer commodity dispensers, or may include high school or introductory college level physics coursework. The designer of ordinary skill would also have a basic understanding of the dimensions and functions afforded to cans and bottles in the context of packaging. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21, 22. We agree with Mr. Gandy’s undisputed testimony as to the designer of ordinary skill based on the final trial record.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Based on these contentions, Petitioner proposes the broadest reasonable construction of the ’074 patent claim is “the ornamental design of either two or three adjacent cylindrical objects in a gravity feed dispenser display, each cylindrical object comprising a smooth curved surface with planar ends, as shown in the drawings of the ’074 Patent.” Pet. 26 (emphasis omitted). Based on the undisputed arguments above, and considering the relationship of the prior art to the claimed design, we find it helpful to describe verbally certain features of the claim for purposes of this Decision. See Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 680. We interpret the scope of the claimed design based on the unique or distinctive shape or appearance of the cylindrical objects that is not dictated by function. Based on the final record before us, we find persuasive Petitioner’s contention that the specific arrangement of the cylindrical objects is dictated primarily by function. The precise placement of cylindrical objects is controlled by the use of the gravity feed dispenser and the natural resting position of one cylindrical object on two others. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Fig. 4. Our invalidity analysis below focuses on what the claimed cylindrical objects contribute to the design’s overall ornamentation. See Richardson, 597 F.3d at 1293–94 (factoring out purely functional aspects of a design patent from an obviousness analysis). Neither party has indicated that our claim interpretation from the Decision to Institute (Dec. 3–8) is improper and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that recommends any deviation from our initial construction. We therefore convey the scope of the claim of the ’074 patent as: “the ornamental design of a gravity feed dispenser display depicting either two or three adjacent cylindrical objects, each cylindrical object comprising a smooth curved surface with planar ends, as shown in the drawings of the ’074 patent.” See Dec. 8.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Based on the record before us, Petitioner has established persuasively that both embodiments of the ’074 patent design and the design of Pendergrast are substantially the same under the ordinary observer analysis. Both designs are for a gravity feed dispenser display. Petitioner establishes that the ornamental design of the cans of Pendergrast are substantially identical to the ’074 patent cylindrical objects, with each having a smooth curved surface with planar ends. See Ex. 1003, Fig. 1, 3; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–47. Further, although not required under our claim construction, the placement and positioning of Pendergrast’s cylindrical objects are also substantially the same as that of the ’074 patent. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 46. Accordingly, based on the final record before us, Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Pendergrast anticipates the claim of the ’074 patent.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS D595,074 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
• Askeladden LLC v. Purple Leaf, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 13, 2018 · IPR2016-01722 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over four combinations; claims 12–17 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hughes.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6

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

    “II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Neither party proposes that we expressly construe any claim terms, and we determine that none of the claims terms require an express construction to resolve the issues before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 5

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

    “It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures of Carlson and Stilp because Carlson discloses “transferring data . . . via [a] cellular network.” (Ex. 1003, 4:62–64.) As such, Carlson expressly discloses the combination of its payment system with conventional cellular systems, which are described by Stilp. Moreover, Stilp discloses a registration procedure that allows cellular devices to discover each other’s presence. (Ex. 1005, 2:46–64.) It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to modify the payment processing network (310) or access device (e.g., a POS terminal) (Ex. 1003, 4:61–61[2]) of Carlson to include the process of searching for available wireless devices in a manner similar to the cellular telephone discovery and registration process disclosed by Stilp to enable the Carlson payment processing network or access device to discover mobile phone devices (such as mobile phone 304) to participate in a mobile payment system, as disclosed in Carlson. A person of ordinary skill in the art therefore would have combined Carlson and Stilp to make the” slip op. at 8

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

    “Anticipation by Hughes A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim if it “discloses each and every element of the claimed invention arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.” Monsanto Tech. LLC v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 878 F.3d 1336, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Petitioner contends that Hughes discloses each and every element of claims 12–17. Pet. 23–31.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 8,744,963 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,744,963
• Askeladden LLC v. Purple Leaf, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 13, 2018 · IPR2016-01721 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable: claims 10–11 anticipated by Sirbu; claims 1–9 obvious over the specified combinations of Sirbu with Hughes and additional references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “December 14, 1999, would have had either: “(i) a Bachelor-of-Science degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or Computer Engineering, or equivalent, and two (2) years of prior experience in software development, or (ii) a post-graduate degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or Computer Engineering, or equivalent.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1502 ¶¶ 22–26). Because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). There is a presumption that claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the specification. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nonetheless, if the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Another exception to the general rule that claims are given their ordinary and customary meaning is “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Uship Intellectual Props., LLC v. United States, 714 F.3d 1311, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Although Petitioner proposes that we construe the term “receipt” (Pet. 6), we determine that no express construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision and decline to expressly construe the term. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Anticipation by Sirbu A prior art reference anticipates a patent claim if it “discloses each and every element of the claimed invention arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.” Monsanto Tech. LLC v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 878 F.3d 1336, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Petitioner contends that Sirbu discloses each and every element of claims 10 and 11. Pet. 6–12.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Additionally, Petitioner asserts: One of ordinary skill in the art plainly would have recognized to include built-in cellular telephone functionality in a customer terminal for performing payment transactions, as taught in Hughes, in the customer computer 10 of Sirbu, as doing so would “provide[] portability for the terminal” (Ex. 1506, 11:1–4) by eliminating the necessity of a wired terminal connection. Indeed, Hughes recognizes that by including built-in cellular telephone functionality, the terminal becomes “more portable than” an alternative without such functionality (Ex. 1506, 10:64–67). One of ordinary skill in the art would plainly have recognized the benefits of including cellular connectivity in Sirbu’s customer computer, as doing so would have permitted the user to perform Sirbu’s purchase transactions without being tethered to a wired data connection. Pet. 13 (alteration by Petitioner) (citing Ex. 1502 ¶ 86). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and we find that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s arguments. We hereby adopt Petitioner’s position on the facts as our own, including Petitioner’s citations to the evidence of record as reflected in pages 12–20 of the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Sirbu and Hughes would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, and 6–9 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,527,407 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,527,407

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.