- PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00351 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–26 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv Order 6. That is the case here. Thus, the first Fintiv factor strongly weighs against exercising the authority to deny institution. Id. Under the second Fintiv factor, the proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision weighs against exercising our authority to deny institution because there is no trial date scheduled. Id. at 9; see Ex. 1031, 3. slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board, however, has discretion to deny a petition even when a petitioner meets that threshold. Id.; see, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). For the reasons that follow, we grant institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in computer science or a related field and at least 2 years of experience in multimedia processing or delivery using internet protocols.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–68). Petitioner further states that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for a POSITA.” Id. Patent Owner submits a similar definition (see Prelim. Resp. 13–14), but states that a POSITA “would understand that . . . the subject of the patent is a software-based solution to broadcasting multimedia streams, and the skillset and expertise in hardware-based systems would not make one knowledgeable about software-based systems.” Prelim. Resp. 13–14. We determine that no express finding is necessary, on the present record, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is 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). The difference in how each party characterizes a POSITA’s work experience does not change our analysis or conclusions based on the present record. Should Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition during trial, we encourage Patent Owner to explain how a software-focused definition would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Claim 1 does not limit the “caching unit” in any way. With this in mind, we preliminarily agree that Farber discloses the subject matter of limitation 1a sufficiently to meet Petitioner’s burden on institution. b.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,140,441 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00350 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13 for all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“After Patent Owner made these arguments, though, the district court in the Florida Litigation (1) stayed all deadlines indefinitely and (2) said that the October trial will not go forward as scheduled. Ex. 1028, 3. “A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv Order 6. That is the case here. Thus, the first Fintiv factor strongly weighs against exercising the authority to deny institution. Id.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Conclusion At this stage and on this record, it is reasonably likely that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Avellan. The Petition’s merits are compelling because Petitioner’s challenge plainly leads to a conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelOther
“B. Merits 1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to the Petition, Here, a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time of the claimed invention would have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in computer science or a related field and at least 2 years of experience in multimedia processing or delivery using internet protocols. . . . A person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could also meet the standard. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 68–69). Patent Owner provides a different definition: A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions in the ‘002 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience working in the field of software systems used in generating and broadcasting multimedia streams. An individual with less technical education but more experience, or vice versa, could also qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 59) (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the definition must include experience in software systems because the invention is a software-based solution. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 60). At this stage, our decision would be the same under either definition. Should Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition during trial, we encourage Patent Owner to explain how a software-focused definition would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“There is no dispute that (1) Avellan’s user initiates the request and eventually receives the stream and (2) gateway server 134 receives a request for a media stream for playback on a broadcast channel. See id. at 32–39; Pet. 22. The issue here is whether claim 1 requires that the recited “content provider” originates the request. We agree with Petitioner that claim 1 does not require this. Prelim. Reply 7. Apart from being received from the content provider, claim 1 does not limit the request’s origin in any way. Rather, claim 1 only requires that the request is received from the content provider. Ex. 1001, 14:51–54. Claim 1 recites “comprising” in the preamble of the method (id. at 14:50), which is a encompasses user-originated requests that are received from other entities. With this understanding of the claim, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a through its communication path from network 150 to user computers 1041–104n via gateway platforms 1301–130n. Pet. 22. That is, Avellan’s gateway platform 134 receives a request for at least one media stream, and claim 1 does not exclude user-originated requests. See id. We agree that the content can be video from CNN, BBC, ESPN, or other live-streaming television feeds. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:18–21). Thus, at this stage and on this record, we agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a. See id. at 22. ii. Remaining Limitations Apart from the arguments discussed above, Patent Owner does not present arguments specifically directed to the other limitations of claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. We determine that Petitioner’s arguments made in connection with those limitations are sufficient at this stage and on this record. Pet. 24–32. We agree with Petitioner that Avellan teaches obtaining content from the networks 150 and 152, as recited in 1b; rendering a webpage by a browser at gateway 134, as recited in 1c; generating the screen captures at gateway 134, as recited in 1d; and assembling and providing the media stream when gateway server 134 compresses the image or video format and sends it to the browser 106, as recited in 1e and 1f. Id. at 24–29. Petitioner has provided a sufficient rationale at this stage why a method with the subject matter recited in lg and 1h would have been obvious. Id. at 29– 32. Conclusion At this stage and on this record, it is reasonably likely that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Avellan. The Petition’s merits are compelling because Petitioner’s challenge plainly leads to a conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 12
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,524,002 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00349 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Avellan anticipates claim 1.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv Order 6. That is the case here. Thus, the first Fintiv factor strongly weighs against exercising the authority to deny institution. Id. slip op. at 6
- Skill levelOther
“B. Merits 1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to the Petition, A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time of the claimed invention would have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in computer science or a related field and at least 2 years of experience in multimedia processing or delivery using internet protocols. Furthermore, a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for a POSITA. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 68). Patent Owner provides a different definition: A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed inventions in the ‘074 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience working in the field of software systems used in generating and broadcasting multimedia streams. An individual with less technical education but more experience, or vice versa, could also qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 58) (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the definition must include experience in software systems because the invention is a software-based solution. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 59). Should Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition during trial, we encourage Patent Owner to explain how a software-focused definition would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Apart from being received from the content provider, claim 1 does not limit the request’s origin in any way. Rather, claim 1 only requires that the request is received from the content provider. Ex. 1001, 14:48–50. Claim 1 recites “comprising” in the preamble of the method (id. at 14:47), which is a term that does not exclude additional, unrecited steps. Thus, claim 1 encompasses user-originated requests that are received from other entities. With this understanding of the claim, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a through its communication path from network 150 to user computers 1041–104n via gateway platforms 1301–130n and broadcast device 102. Pet. 17–18. That is, Avellan’s gateway platform 134 receives a request from broadcast device 102 for at least one media stream, and claim 1 does not exclude user-originated requests. See id. We agree that the content can be video from CNN, BBC, ESPN, or other live-streaming television feeds. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:18–21). Thus, at this stage and on this record, we agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a. See id. at 17–19.” slip op. at 13
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,123,074 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · IPR2015-01613 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 over Ryoichi; claim 3 over Ryoichi and Mansell.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“in claim 12), 76:57–58 (claim 16). Thus, in each of the independent claims, the first control device must respond to a signal from the second control device. Petitioner asserts that access control device 64 is the first control device and that clearinghouse 18 or 66 is the second control device. Pet. 15. Therefore, Petitioner must establish that Kniffin discloses that access control device 64 responds to a signal from the clearinghouse. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has a made a sufficient showing on this point. Petitioner contends that “truck access control device 64 is responsive to reprogramming signals from clearinghouse 66.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1002, 8:61–67, Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 15). Petitioner, however, does not explain the import or impact of the signal sent from identification device 70. This is key because Kniffin states that “[i]n response to identification of the authorized user at the lock within the prescribed time period, a lock microprocessor CPU 30 instructs a lock mechanism 32 to unlock.” Ex. 1002, 3:64–66. In the fourth embodiment, access is based on the identity of a location and not that of an individual. See id. at 8:17–18 (“Each possible destination is assigned an identification number.”). Access is granted “[i]f the detected identification device corresponds to the first expected stop.” Id. at 8:30–31. Access is blocked if “the access control device . . . sense[s] either the absence of an identification device, or will sense an identification device that does not correspond to an authorized stop.” Id. at 8:39–45.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“In that 2007 filing, the term “signal” was defined as “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information.” Ex. 2002, 11. We are persuaded that this definition is instructive to understanding the proper scope of these claim terms. Thus, a first signal, for example, is an “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information that is sent by a first device.” We have not been directed to evidence in the specification sufficient to show that the Applicant desired to narrow this very broad definition of signal in a manner that would exclude signals that pass through intermediaries. As defined by the Applicant, a signal may be an indication, information, or a message and we are not persuaded that it is impermissible for an intermediary to pass this information on and to add further data to the information that it received. For the foregoing reasons, we construe the term “first signal” to be “a signal sent by a first device;” “second signal” to be “a signal sent by a second device;” and “third signal” to be “a signal sent by a third device.” The recited signals all are construed to be “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information.” Finally, we are not persuaded that these terms exclude signals that may pass through an intermediary and any such intermediary may append additional information to the received signals.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“in claim 12), 76:57–58 (claim 16). Thus, in each of the independent claims, the first control device must respond to a signal from the second control device. Petitioner asserts that access control device 64 is the first control device and that clearinghouse 18 or 66 is the second control device. Pet. 15. Therefore, Petitioner must establish that Kniffin discloses that access control device 64 responds to a signal from the clearinghouse. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has a made a sufficient showing on this point. Petitioner contends that “truck access control device 64 is responsive to reprogramming signals from clearinghouse 66.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1002, 8:61–67, Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 15). Petitioner, however, does not explain the import or impact of the signal sent from identification device 70. This is key because Kniffin states that “[i]n response to identification of the authorized user at the lock within the prescribed time period, a lock microprocessor CPU 30 instructs a lock mechanism 32 to unlock.” Ex. 1002, 3:64–66. In the fourth embodiment, access is based on the identity of a location and not that of an individual. See id. at 8:17–18 (“Each possible destination is assigned an identification number.”). Access is granted “[i]f the detected identification device corresponds to the first expected stop.” Id. at 8:30–31. Access is blocked if “the access control device . . . sense[s] either the absence of an identification device, or will sense an identification device that does not correspond to an authorized stop.” Id. at 8:39–45.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We, however, are not persuaded that Petitioner has put forth sufficient evidence to establish that the mere act of storing information in memory discloses the disputed limitation. The specification of the ’405 patent describes the “operational steps and/or sequence of operation of the apparatus and method of the present invention.” Ex. 1001, 32:10–11. In order “to prevent an unauthorized access” the system compares the received program command with “data which may be stored in apparatus program memory.” Id. at 32:40–48. Kniffin’s stored schedule of stops appears to be similar to the stored data described in the ’405 patent. The control device, however, is not responsive to the stored data, but rather it responds to the program code. See id. at 39:51–65. Thus, we are not persuaded that Kniffin’s disclosure of storing the schedule is sufficient to disclose the disputed limitation. Therefore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated that Kniffin discloses a first control device that is responsive to a second control signal. For the foregoing reasons we determine that Petitioner has not carried its burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claims 1, 12, and 16 are anticipated by Kniffin. By that same regard, we also are not persuaded that Petitioner has established the unpatentability of dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20 as relates to the asserted grounds that include Kniffin. The various anticipation and obviousness grounds asserted for each of those claims relies upon the assertions and arguments discussed above in relation to Petitioner’s assertions regarding Kniffin’s disclosures as applied to the independent claims. Petitioner has not argued that the above discussed deficiency is remedied by arguments or evidence put forth in any of the other Kniffin-based grounds. Therefore, Petitioner has not satisfied its burden in relation to its assertions of unpatentability based on Kniffin as directed to claims 1– 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 of the ’405 patent. B. Analysis of Asserted Grounds Based on Ryoichi” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 5,917,405 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 5,917,405 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 27, 2017 · IPR2015-01610 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3, 18, 65, 67, 68, 70, 73, 91, 94, 96, 103, 110, 116, 119, 120, and 205 are unpatentable, including as anticipated by Ryoichi and obvious over Ryoichi-based combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of the Decision to Institute, we construed the term “control device.” Dec. 5–9. Neither party raised any concerns regarding this construction during trial. See PO Resp. 10–11; Reply 1. Based on our review of the full record, we discern no reason to modify or further discuss in this Final Written Decision our construction for this claim term. For convenience, the claim construction is reproduced in the table below. Term Citations Construction Control Ex. 2002, 6 A device or a computer, or that part of a device or Device a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“In that 2007 filing, the term “signal” was defined as “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information.” Ex. 2002, 11. We are persuaded that this definition is instructive to understanding the proper scope of these claim terms. Thus, a first signal, for example, is an “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information that is sent by a first device.” We have not been directed to evidence in the specification sufficient to show that the Applicant desired to narrow this very broad definition of signal in a manner that would exclude signals that pass through intermediaries. As defined by the Applicant, a signal may be an indication, 7 This information was modified by a Certificate of Correction issued July 1, 2003. See Ex. 1001, 95. information, or a message and we are not persuaded that it is impermissible for an intermediary to pass this information on and to add further data to the information that it received. For the foregoing reasons, we construe the term “first signal” to be “a signal sent by a first device”; “second signal” to be “a signal sent by a second device”; and “third signal” to be “a signal sent by a third device.” The recited signals all are construed to be “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information.” Finally, we are not persuaded that these terms exclude signals that may pass through an intermediary and any such intermediary may append additional information to the received signals.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“generates the first signal and transmits the first signal in response to a second signal.” Ex. 1001, 106:51–54; see also id. 122:10–12 (similar language in claim 73), 141:38–40 (claim 205). Thus, in each of the independent claims, the first control device must respond to a signal from the second control device. Petitioner asserts that access control device 64 is the first control device and that clearinghouse 18 or 66 is the second control device. Pet. 12. Therefore, Petitioner must establish that Kniffin discloses that access control device 64 responds to a signal from the clearinghouse. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has a made a sufficient showing on this point. Petitioner alleges that “clearinghouse 66 transmits the schedule to the truck access control device 64 . . . where the schedule is stored in memory 68.” Id. at 14. Petitioner then makes the bare assertion that “Kniffin’s truck access control device 64 (the in-vehicle control device), located in the vehicle, is responsive to signals from clearinghouse 66 (the middle device), located remote from the vehicle.” Id. at 15. Petitioner also contends that “truck access control device 64 is responsive to signals from clearinghouse 66, as Kniffin discloses that truck access control device 64 may be reprogrammed by clearinghouse 66.” Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1010, 8:61– 67, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 11–13). Petitioner, however, does not explain why storing a schedule in memory or reprogramming a device discloses the recited device responsive to a second signal. Nor does Petitioner explain the import or impact of the signal sent from identification device 70. This is key because Kniffin states that “[i]n response to identification of the authorized user at the lock within the prescribed time period, a lock microprocessor CPU 30 instructs a lock mechanism 32 to unlock.” Ex. 1010, 3:64–66. In the fourth embodiment, access is based on the identity of a location and not that of an individual. See id. at 8:17–18 (“Each possible destination is assigned an identification number.”). Access is granted “[i]f the detected identification device corresponds to the first expected stop.” Id. at 8:30–31. Access is blocked if “the access control device . . . sense[s] either the absence of an identification device, or will sense an identification device that does not correspond to an authorized stop.” Id. at 8:39–45.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Ryoichi to use the Internet because “conventional wisdom at the time of the effective filing date of the ‘076 Patent was that the Internet was not secure and there were also many impediments on the use of the Internet.” PO Resp. 37. In support of this position, Patent Owner cites a Morgan Stanley “Internet Report” from 1996 which noted concerns about security and potential limits to Internet access. Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 2007, 24). Petitioner responds by asserting that Patent Owner “admitted that, in March of 1996, a person of ordinary skill in the art as would have appreciated the Internet as an improved transmission system.” Reply 10 (citing Pet. 35–36). Specifically, Petitioner is directing us to Patent Owner’s Response to an Office Action in the reexamination of the ’363 patent. As mentioned above, the ’363 and ’076 patents are related patents that share common ancestors. See § II.B. There, Patent Owner asserted that one of ordinary skill in the art “would appreciate the infrastructure of the Internet and its improved signal transmission capabilities, as compared to the [RF] system used in Kniffin, as being a superior system for transmitting a signal or message from one location to another.” Ex. 1024, 11. Petitioner also asserts that the cited Morgan Stanley Internet Report does not represent the conventional wisdom of one of ordinary skill in the art because it was prepared to help investors ascertain risks and rewards related to the Internet and Patent Owner does not show that one of ordinary skill would have looked to such a document. Reply. 12 (citing Ex. 2007, 4). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Patent Owner’s statements during reexamination of the ’363 patent as to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill are more directly related to the issues at hand than an investment report. We agree with Petitioner’s analysis of Ryoichi and the teachings of Spaur, Behr, or Kubler. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve Ryoichi’s system with the known methods of transmitting information over the Internet. See Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 6,542,076 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,542,076 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 26, 2017 · IPR2015-01611 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 91 and 92 are unpatentable over Kniffin; the petitioner did not show claims 26, 31, 38, 42, 43, 48, 60, 63, 64, 73, 74, 85, 138, 139, and 143 unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“second signal, wherein the second signal is at least one of generated by and transmitted from a second control device.” Ex. 1001, 80:9–10; see also id. 83:25–26 (similar language in claim 42), 85:15–18 (claim 48), 99:13–14 (claim 138). Thus, in each of independent claims 26, 42, 48, and 138, the first control device must respond to a signal from the second control device. Petitioner asserts that access control device 64 is the first control device and that clearinghouse 18 or 66 is the second control device. Pet. 13–14. Therefore, Petitioner must establish that Kniffin discloses that access control device 64 responds to a signal from the clearinghouse. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has a made a sufficient showing on this point.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“second signal, wherein the second signal is at least one of generated by and transmitted from a second control device.” Ex. 1001, 80:9–10; see also id. 83:25–26 (similar language in claim 42), 85:15–18 (claim 48), 99:13–14 (claim 138). Thus, in each of independent claims 26, 42, 48, and 138, the first control device must respond to a signal from the second control device. Petitioner asserts that access control device 64 is the first control device and that clearinghouse 18 or 66 is the second control device. Pet. 13–14. Therefore, Petitioner must establish that Kniffin discloses that access control device 64 responds to a signal from the clearinghouse. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has a made a sufficient showing on this point.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“have modified Kniffin to use the Internet because “conventional wisdom at the time of the effective filing date of the ’130 Patent was that the Internet was not secure and there were also many impediments on the use of the Internet.” PO Resp. 32. In support of this position, Patent Owner cites a 1996 Morgan Stanley “Internet Report” that noted concerns about security and potential limits to Internet access. Id. at 32–34 (citing Ex. 2005, 24).” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“have modified Kniffin to use the Internet because “conventional wisdom at the time of the effective filing date of the ’130 Patent was that the Internet was not secure and there were also many impediments on the use of the Internet.” PO Resp. 32. In support of this position, Patent Owner cites a 1996 Morgan Stanley “Internet Report” that noted concerns about security and potential limits to Internet access. Id. at 32–34 (citing Ex. 2005, 24).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 6,549,130 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,549,130 - Nissan North America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 25, 2017 · IPR2015-01585 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 11, 16, and 17 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 16 are anticipated by Frossard and Pagliaroli; the remaining claims are unpatentable on the stated obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Claim 3 recites, in relevant part, “a positioning device for determining location of the vehicle, wherein said positioning device is located at the vehicle.” In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed the term “positioning device” to be governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 65. Dec. 6. Patent Owner disagrees and asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand ‘“positioning device’ to be the name for the structure that performs the corresponding functions, even though the term covers a broad class of structures and/or identifies the structures by their function.” PO. Resp. 10–11. Petitioner maintains that the preliminary construction should govern this Final Written Decision. Reply 1–2. In Patent Owner’s view, “positioning device” is similar to terms such as filters, brakes, and clamps that have functional names, but still provide sufficient structure to remove the term from the reach of § 112 ¶ 6. PO Resp. 10–11. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s position is inconsistent because Petitioner argues that “positioning device” is not sufficient structure while arguing for a construction that includes the same term. Id. at 11 (noting that the proposed structure is a “satellite-based global positioning device.”). We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Thus, we find that “positioning device” is not governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. For the purposes of this decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “positioning device” which is “a device that determines the location of the vehicle.” PO Resp. 12.” 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 have not been directed to evidence in the specification sufficient to show that the Applicant desired to narrow this very broad definition of signal in a manner that would exclude signals that pass through intermediaries. As defined by the Applicant, a signal may be an indication, information, or a message and we are not persuaded that it is impermissible for an intermediary to pass this information on and to add further data to the information that it received. For the foregoing reasons, we construe the term “first signal” to be “a signal sent by a first device;” “second signal” to be “a signal sent by a second device;” and “third signal” to be “a signal sent by a third device.” The recited signals all are construed to be “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information.” Finally, we are not persuaded that these terms exclude signals that may pass through an intermediary and any such intermediary may append additional information to the received signals. III. ANALYSIS” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that Mr. McNamara’s statements on cross examination are sufficient to accord his testimony little or no weight. The prosecution history is an important element in understanding the claims of a patent. We, however, are persuaded that the statements made during cross examination appear to be misstatements as to Mr. McNamara’s review of the patent and its underlying prosecution history. Mr. McNamara signed his declaration under penalty of perjury and he has made other statements consistent with his testimony under oath stating that he reviewed the prosecution history. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 14; Ex. 2005, 154:11–20. In addition, we have reviewed the relevant prosecution history and we are in the position to evaluate whether Mr. McNamara’s testimony is at odds with the evidence in this case, which include the relevant prosecution history. Accordingly, we are not persuaded Mr. McNamara’s testimony should be accorded little or no weight due to the statements he made during cross-examination regarding his review of the prosecution history.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner is correct in arguing that Patent Owner improperly attempts to limit “control device” in a way that contradicts the construction of the term. We agree with Petitioner that Frossard’s server center 1 and resource 2 may disclose the claimed “second control device” because by definition a “control device” can comprise “part of a device”; therefore, it follows that if something may be “part of a device” then it is permissible for that device to have multiple parts. Thus, a “control device,” which necessarily is a type of device, can include multiple parts. Therefore, the question is whether the cited elements of Frossard (server center 1 and resource 2) reasonably can be interpreted to be the parts of the second control device. To that end, Petitioner compares the combination of Frossard’s server center 1 and resource 2 with the ’405 patent’s combination of server 952 and transmitter 957. Id. at 8–9. It is Petitioner’s contention that “Frossard’s server 1 corresponds to server 952 of the ’405 patent because both generate a signal for remote control. Frossard’s resource 2 corresponds to transmitter 957 of the ’405 patent because both transmit the signal.” Id. at 12. According to Petitioner, “[t]he specification describes that, in response to a command received by the server receiver 953, the server 952 sends a control signal via the transmitter 957.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 58:41–48, 5:55– 58). Further, Petitioner asserts that “[a]ll of the described second devices use transmitters (e.g., server 952 uses transmitter 957 in Fig. 11B).” Id. at 9. Thus, in Petitioner’s view, Patent Owner’s argument that the control device may not be the combination of a server and transmitter is not supported by the specification. Id. We agree and find that Frossard discloses the claimed second control device. We also determine that because Patent Owner acknowledged, in its own definition, that “control device” means “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions” (emphases added), it necessarily follows that the “or” implies that a control device can include multiple parts. Tr. 36:1–38:19. Thus, a “control device” that is both “[1] a device and [2] a computer” would fall within the scope of the construed claim term because the term “or” is broad enough to include a variant that has both of the listed options. Id. Here, we determine Frossard’s server center 1 and resource 2 discloses a control device (i.e., “a device or a computer”).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 5,917,405 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 5,917,405 - Nissan North America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 25, 2017 · IPR2015-01508 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3, 20, 65, 73, 93, 103, 104, 108, and 205 are unpatentable: claims 3, 20, 73, 103, and 205 are anticipated by Frossard; the remaining claims are unpatentable on the stated obviousness or anticipation …
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“For purposes of the Decision to Institute, we construed the term “control device.” Dec. 10–11. Neither party raised any concerns regarding this construction during trial. See PO Resp. 10–11; Reply 1. Based on our review of the full record, we discern no reason to modify or further discuss in this Final Written Decision our construction for this claim term. For convenience, the claim construction is reproduced in the table below. Term Citations Construction Control Ex. 2002, 6 A device or a computer, or that part of a device or Device a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In that 2007 filing, the term “signal” was defined as “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information.” Ex. 2002, 11. We are persuaded that this definition is instructive to understanding the proper scope of these claim terms. Thus, a first signal, for example, is an “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information that is sent by a first device.” 7 This information was modified by a Certificate of Correction issued July 1, 2003. See Ex. 1001, 95. We have not been directed to evidence in the specification sufficient to show that the Applicant desired to narrow this very broad definition of signal in a manner that would exclude signals that pass through intermediaries. As defined by the Applicant, a signal may be an indication, information, or a message and we are not persuaded that it is impermissible for an intermediary to pass this information on and to add further data to the information that it received. For the foregoing reasons, we construe the term “first signal” to be “a signal sent by a first device;” “second signal” to be “a signal sent by a second device;” and “third signal” to be “a signal sent by a third device.” The recited signals all are construed to be “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information.” Finally, we are not persuaded that these terms exclude signals that may pass through an intermediary.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that Mr. McNamara’s statements on cross examination are sufficient to accord his testimony little or no weight. The prosecution history is an important element in understanding the claims of a patent. We, however, are persuaded that the statements made during cross examination appear to be misstatements as to Mr. McNamara’s review of the patent and its underlying prosecution history. Mr. McNamara signed his declaration under penalty of perjury and he has made other statements consistent with his testimony under oath stating that he reviewed the prosecution history. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 14; Ex. 2005, 154:11–20. In addition, we have reviewed the relevant prosecution history and we are in the position to evaluate whether Mr. McNamara’s testimony is at odds with the evidence in this case, which include the relevant prosecution history. Accordingly, we are not persuaded Mr. McNamara’s testimony should be accorded little or no weight due to the statements he made during cross-examination regarding his review of the prosecution history.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner is correct in arguing that Patent Owner improperly attempts to limit “control device” in a way that contradicts the construction of the term. We agree with Petitioner that Frossard’s server center 1 and resource 2 may disclose the claimed “second control device” because by definition a “control device” can comprise “part of a device”; therefore, it follows that if something may be “part of a device” then it is permissible for that device to have multiple parts. Thus, a “control device,” which necessarily is a type of device, can include multiple parts. Therefore, the question is whether the cited elements of Frossard (server center 1 and resource 2) reasonably can be interpreted to be the parts of the second control device. To that end, Petitioner compares the combination of Frossard’s server center 1 and resource 2 with the ’076 patent’s combination of server 952 and transmitter 957. Id. at 9. It is Petitioner’s contention that “Frossard’s server 1 corresponds to server 952 of the ’076 patent because both generate a signal for remote control. Frossard’s resource 2 corresponds to transmitter 957 of the ’076 patent because both transmit the signal.” Id. at 12. According to Petitioner, “[t]he specification describes that, in response to a command received by the server receiver 953, the server 952 sends a control signal via the transmitter 957.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 58:41–48, 5:55–58). Further, Petitioner asserts that “[a]ll of the described second devices use transmitters (e.g., server 952 uses transmitter 957 in Fig. 11B).” Id. at 10. Thus, in Petitioner’s view, Patent Owner’s argument that the control device may not be the combination of a server and transmitter is not supported by the specification. Id. We agree and find that Frossard discloses the claimed second control device.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 6,542,076 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,542,076 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2017 · IPR2015-01612 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 68, 69, 74, 77, and 80 are unpatentable as anticipated by Spaur; claim 72 is unpatentable as obvious over Spaur.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Monitoring Systems, LLC, filed a Preliminary Response pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Based on our review of these submissions, we declined to institute review of claims 21, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, and 33, and we instituted inter partes review of claims 68, 69, 72, 74, 77, and 80. Paper 7 (“Dec.”). Specifically, we authorized this inter partes review to proceed as to the following grounds: (1) claims 68, 69, 74, 77, and 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Spaur1; and (2) claim 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Spaur.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“processing device” Patent Owner argues that “processing device” means “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.” PO Resp. 8. Patent Owner argues that this definition comes from the prosecution history of the ’363 patent (Ex. 1007) and is consistent with the Specification. Id. Petitioner does not dispute this construction. See Reply 2–4. We agree that this explicit definition for “processing device” was provided in the prosecution of the application that issued as the ’363 patent. See Ex. 1007. We have reviewed the definition and we find it to be instructive to understanding the proper scope of “processing device.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Thus, we adopt the Patent Owner’s construction of “processing device” to mean “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions” for the purposes of this decision. slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner’s characterization of Spaur’s teachings and we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Patent Owner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence that the “second processing device” of claim 68 is not encompassed by Spaur’s teaching of a CDPD network modem. Pursuant to our construction discussed above, the term “processing device” means “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.” See § II.A. This is the definition Patent Owner proposed and that Patent Owner provided during prosecution. We are unpersuaded as to why Spaur’s CDPD network modem 76 is necessarily different from “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.”” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“not address the arguments in the Petition about the obviousness of claim 72. Reply 13. In particular, the Petition stated that: (1) Spaur describes a “wireless device” contained in the vehicle for transmitting and receiving information over an air link (Ex. 1004, 6:3–5), (2) Spaur describes that such devices may be among vehicle devices 50 (id. at 10:1–9), and (3) using a wireless device, a cellular telephone, or a personal digital assistant as the communication device in the system described by Spaur would have been within the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the alleged invention of claim 72 was made, and it would have been obvious to do so because it would allow the user to operate the system from a mobile device. Pet. 59–60 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 40). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner does not dispute the first two statements. Rather, we interpret Patent Owner’s arguments as directed to the third statement. Petitioner argues that Mr. Andrews testified in his declaration that wireless devices, cellular telephones, and personal digital assistants were well-known as of the filing of the ’363 patent, and that the use of a mobile device in Spaur’s system would have been obvious. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 40). During his cross examination, Mr. Andrews testified that people “could certainly contact using a cellular telephone contact, an Internet gateway, and obtain information from devices on the Internet via an Internet gateway.” Ex. 2004, 45:16–19. Thus, Petitioner argues, Patent Owner has no basis for its statement that Mr. Andrews could not support this position during cross-examination. We agree with Petitioner and are not persuaded that Mr. Andrews’s testimony is unsupported based on his statements during cross examination.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 7,397,363 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,397,363 - Nissan North America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 30, 2016 · IPR2015-01509 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 26, 29, 30, 33, 42, 43, 48, 60, and 68 are unpatentable as anticipated by Frossard or Pagliaroli, or 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 petitioner
“In that 2007 filing, the term “signal” was defined as “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information.” Ex. 2002, 11. We are persuaded that this definition is instructive to understanding the proper scope of these claim terms. Thus, a first signal, for example, is an “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information that is sent by a first device.” We have not been directed to evidence in the specification sufficient to show that the Applicant desired to narrow this very broad definition of signal in a manner that would exclude signals that pass through intermediaries. As defined by the Applicant, a signal may be an indication, information, or a message and we are not persuaded that it is impermissible for an intermediary to pass this information on and to add further data to the information that it received. For the foregoing reasons, we construe the term “first signal” to be “a signal sent by a first device;” “second signal” to be “a signal sent by a second device;” and “third signal” to be “a signal sent by a third device.” For convenience, this claim construction is reproduced in the table below.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that Mr. McNamara’s statements on cross examination are sufficient reason to accord his testimony little or no weight. The prosecution history is an important element in understanding the claims of a patent. We are persuaded that the statements made during cross examination appear to misstatements as to Mr. McNamara’s review of the patent and its underlying prosecution history. Mr. McNamara signed his declaration under penalty of perjury and he has made other statements consistent with his testimony under oath stating that he reviewed the prosecution history. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 14; Ex. 2003, 154:11–20. Mr. McNamara signed his declaration on June 24, 2015, which states that he read the ’130 patent and its prosecution history. Ex. 1003 ¶ 14. Although Mr. McNamara testified that he did not read the prosecution history (Ex. 2003, 153:11–15), Patent Owner ignores Mr. McNamara’s other statements that demonstrate that he reviewed the prosecution history (id. at 154:11–20). In addition, Mr. McNamara’s statement was during a lengthy deposition approximately nine months after Mr. McNamara signed his declaration. Mr. McNamara’s inconsistent testimony appears to illustrate a momentary lapse in memory. Compare e.g., id. at 153:11–15, with id. at 154:11–20. Moreover, the only claim terms Mr. McNamara defined in view of the prosecution history of the ’130 patent were “automatically” and “automatically received,” which neither party contests. Compare PO Resp. 10–16; Reply 1; Pet. 8–9, with Ex. 1020, 26. In addition, we are not persuaded that Mr. McNamara’s statement that he did not review the prosecution history of the ’130 patent displays a lack of understanding of the prosecution history because Patent Owner did not define any claim terms at issue in this proceeding that overlap with claim terms defined during the prosecution of the ’130 patent. Compare PO Resp. 10–16, with Ex. 1020, 26.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner attempts to limit “control device” improperly in a way that contradicts Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction. As discussed supra, “control device” is construed as “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.” We agree with Petitioner that Frossard’s server 1 and resource 2 discloses the claimed “second control device” because Patent Owner’s proposed definition of “control device” can comprise “part of a device”; it follows that a device can comprise multiple parts. Also, because a “control device” is a type of device, a “control device” can include necessarily multiple parts. We also determine that because Patent Owner acknowledged, in its own definition, that “control device” means “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions” (emphases added), it necessarily follows that the “or” implies that a control device can include multiple parts. Tr. 32:15–19. For example, a “control device” can be “[1] a device or [2] a computer”; in other words, logic dictates that the “or” can be interpreted as an “and” such that a “control device” can be “[1] a device and [2] a computer.” Id. Moreover, during oral hearing, Patent Owner acknowledged Frossard’s server 1 is a “computer” and Frossard’s resource 2 is a “device.” Id. at 34:14–35:11 (In response to the question, “[s]o you are saying that a server can’t be a device,” Patent Owner acknowledged “[a] server is a computer, and broadly, if you consider a computer a device, a server is a device.”) (In response to the question “resource 2 or indicating a network number 2, is that a device as well?” Patent Owner acknowledged “resource 2 has a coder and has a transmitter. I would say it is a computer, but in a broad sense it can be considered a device.”). Using Patent Owner’s acknowledgement during the oral hearing, it follows that Frossard’s server 1 and Frossard’s resource 2, together, discloses a “control device” under Patent Owner’s proposed definition of “control device.” Furthermore, Figure 1 illustrates that Frossard’s server 1 and resource 2, together, form a control device generating and transmitting a signal. Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. Frossard’s server 1 is part of the claimed “second control device,” such that this part performs an operation, an action, or a function of generating the message order M (i.e., the claimed “second signal”). Id. at 4– 5. In addition, Frossard’s resource 2 is part of the claimed “second control device,” such that this part performs an operation, an action, or a function of transmitting the order message M (i.e., the claimed “second signal”). Id.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner and Mr. McNamara that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Frossard’s system with Pagliaroli’s theft sensor 12 to provide a system for remotely disabling or enabling a vehicle that also provides a notification when it detects tampering or theft. Patent Owner fails to proffer any rationale or evidence for why the combination of Frossard and Pagliaroli would destroy the functionality of Frossard. Further, Patent Owner fails to proffer its own expert testimony refuting Petitioner’s arguments and Mr. McNamara’s opinion. Patent Owner’s arguments are conclusory attorney argument. Patent Owner’s argument that Pagliaroli does not provide a teaching or suggestion that its theft sensor 12 can function as Frossard’s receiver-decoder circuits 4 is improper because Petitioner argues for combining (rather than replacing) Pagliaroli’s theft sensor 12 and Frossard’s receiver-decoder circuits 4. In addition, Patent Owner is incorrect because any teaching or suggestion need not be found in the reference itself.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 6,549,130 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,549,130
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.