- Early Warning Services, LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 11, 2026 · IPR2024-01221 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19–21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39–41, and 43 unpatentable because the cited grounds did not establish the required …
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“image capture device” refers to an imaging-based barcode reader and not a laser-based barcode scanner because we are persuaded that claim language and Specification support that interpretation and also because Patent Owner persuasively shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term as such. Claim 1 recites an “image capture device configured to capture an image.” Ex. 1001, 16:24–25. The plain meaning of the claim term requires that the image be captured, not just scanned. The claim further requires “generating an output based on the information embedded in the image,” requiring that information is retrieved from the captured image. Id. at 16:32–33. A device that does not capture an image is not an “image capture device” under the plain language of the claim. A laser-based barcode scanner employs light reflected from a laser beam to “generate an electrical signal that corresponds to the bars and spaces in the barcode being scanned.” See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 42–43 (explaining in detail how laser-based barcode self-emitting a laser light across a code to be scanned, with a sensor tuned to capture the reflected light from the laser.”). It simply does not capture an image. slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review of the complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. The field of the ’167 patent “relates generally to secure transactions, and more specifically, to methods and devices for providing secure identification, verification, and authorization using a portable secure device.” Ex. 1001, 1:8–11. The ’167 patent seeks “to provide methods and devices that are capable of providing secure transactions in a more efficient manner.” Id. at 3:11–13. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We note, however, that our patentability analysis would be the same under Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Wang fails to disclose limitation 1[a]. Wang discloses a portable electronic authorization device (PEAD) that can be used as a self-checkout terminal. Ex. 1004 ¶ 115. In this context, Wang discloses By entering the UPC code or barcode using keypad on the PEAD or scanning in the UPC code or barcode using the input device built into the PEAD such as a barcode scanner or OCR reader, the PEAD can generate the receipt with the list of item prices through the wireless network and Internet by querying the item price using the barcode as the index for price lookup table which is Stored in a Server System. Id. (emphasis added). As discussed above (Section III.C.1), we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the claimed “image capture device” refers to an imaging-based device and not a laser-based barcode scanner. Petitioner does not contend that Wang’s disclosure of the barcode scanner necessarily refers to an imaging-based device, but argues that Wang’s disclosure is sufficient because “both imaging-based barcode scanners and laser-based barcode scanners constitute image capture devices.” Reply 11. In light of our claim construction above, we disagree.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner contends that claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Wang and Drummond. Pet. 30–43. 1. Drummond Drummond is a patent titled “Automated Banking Machine System and Method,” and “relates to an automated banking machine apparatus and system that are capable of use in a wide area network, and which provides a user with a remote electronic receipt or other record related to a transaction performed at the machine.” Ex. 1008, code (54), ¶ 2. Drummond discloses that its automated banking machine, may “initiate the sending of a non-paper transaction receipt to the customer,” “[t]he receipt may be sent using a wide area network, such as the Internet,” and “[t]he receipt may be an electronic receipt, for example a receipt in the form of an e-mail message.” Id. ¶ 247. 2. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 For this obviousness ground, Petitioner relies on the same arguments and evidence as its Ground 1a (anticipation by Wang), discussed above, for the majority of claim limitations. See Pet. 33–43. Importantly, Petitioner relies solely on Wang as teaching independent claim limitations [1a], [23a], and [43b] relating to an image capture device and embedded information. Pet. 36, 41, 43. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above with respect to Ground 1a, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Wang and Drummond.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 7,314,167 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,314,167 - PTAB · Feb 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01221 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19–21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39–41, and 43 on all asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). Based on the information presented in the Petition and the supporting evidence, we are persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had “a relatively high level of skill, such as having at least a bachelor’s degree in the field of computer science and/or electrical engineering, together with 2–3 years in the financial technology sector.” Pet. 16. Petitioner adds that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have knowledge of the commercial and scientific literature pertaining to securing transactions” and “would also have knowledge of processing devices.” Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 19). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. See Prelim. Resp. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding, we are not persuaded that the term “embedded” should be narrowly construed in the manner proposed by Patent Owner. We find nothing in the claims that requires us to import a “hidden” or a “provide security” limitation into the claims. Claim 1, for example, merely recites “the image having information embedded therein, including information related to a transaction,” and “generat[ing] an output based on the information embedded in the image.” Ex. 1001, 16:24–33 (emphasis added). The claim language therefore does not require limiting embedded information in the proposed way.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“As discussed above, disclaiming or disavowing claim scope requires a “clear and unmistakable disclaimer.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1367. We are not persuaded that the cited portion can be read to clearly and unmistakably disavow claim scope. The cited portion of the Specification discusses various input parameters for decoding a captured image. Ex. 1001, 6:8–10. When viewed in context, “other information” refers to other predetermined information, including “the corresponding private key,” “stored in the memory 150,” which “may be used to decrypt or decode the captured image.” Id. at 6:13–22; see also id. at 5:18–20 (private keys are stored in memory). We therefore read the Specification as merely listing possible input parameters for decoding an image and not disclaiming “the corresponding private key” from the scope of “predetermined information.” After all, the very next sentence states that “predetermined information may include, for example, address information, personal profile information, and payment account information.” Id. at 6:17–22 (emphasis added). Given the various broad categories included in “predetermined information,” we are not persuaded, for purposes of institution, that “predetermined information” excludes a private key. We further determine that this preliminary construction is sufficient to resolve the Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness contentions presented under Petitioner’s Ground 1, and no further construction of the term is necessary.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,314,167 - Iriusrisk, Inc. v. Threatmodeler Software Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 14, 2024 · IPR2023-00821 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 3 are unpatentable as anticipated by Jones; claims 2 and 4–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Jones, Zheng, and Keenan.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“9 In arguing that Jones does not disclose a “predefined interrelated group” of threat model components, Patent Owner, in a footnote, alleges that the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Hurlbut, is “tainted by bias” arising from his “personal and professional connections” to Petitioner. PO Resp. 27 n.4; see PO Sur-reply 21–22. Patent Owner cites no authority to show that such connections necessarily render expert testimony biased, and identifies no actual testimony of Mr. Hurlbut that it alleges to be driven only by bias. On the other hand, Petitioner submits that Mr. Hurlbut also has personal and professional connections to Patent Owner—it’s a small world. See Pet. Reply 24 (“Mr. Hurlbut personally knows Mr. Agarwal, [Patent Owner’s] CEO and inventor of the ’008 patent.”). In this case, we assess the credibility of both parties’ experts based on the plausibility of and support for their testimony, and weigh such testimony accordingly. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) at 32 (“[T]he credibility of experts often turns less on demeanor and more on the plausibility of their theories.”), 35 (“The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony.”); see also 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019).” slip op. at 37
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
Patent outcomesUS 10,699,008 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,699,008 - Iriusrisk, Inc. v. Threatmodeler Software Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00656 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Keenan did not disclose the claimed stored threats, and the obviousness combinations did not establish the mapping limitations or a reason to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“construction of “threat,” which we find in the context of the ’366 patent does not encompass “risk.” See supra § III.D.3.a.1 (discussing “‘Threats’ versus ‘Risks’”). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s premise that “risk” includes “threats” or knowing risk allows for determination of threats is false, and belied by the parties’ experts who do not disagree on this distinction, namely that “risk” is not a “threat,” but rather represents the likelihood of a threat occurring compounded by the impact of such a threat on a given system (discussed above). See Ex. 2002, 24:3–25:5, 31:5–33:2 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Hurlbut, agreeing that “Risk = Likelihood x Impact”); Ex. 2009 ¶ 80; PO Sur-reply 9–10. Thus, we find unavailing Petitioner’s attempt to walk backwards from Keenan’s explicit disclosure of “risk” modeling into an anticipatory (explicit) disclosure of stored “threats” that may give rise to such risk. Viewing Keenan in the light agreed upon by the parties’ experts, where “risk” is a product of the “likelihood” of a threat occurring and the “impact” of such a threat on a given system, persuades us that although Keenan discloses “risk,” “types of risk,” and “risk ranking” (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 16:21–63), Keenan uses such “risk” as a given value without explicitly disclosing any underlying stored threats or use thereof. See Ex. 2009 ¶ 112 (“Keenan does not disclose a system for measuring risk. The risk for objects is determined before the objects are imported into the [Integrated Object Environment]. Keenan does not make that measurement.”). Indeed, in order to “store” “threats” in “one or more databases” as recited in claim 1, such “threats” must be identified (i.e., known) at some level of specificity to the system. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence that Keenan explicitly discloses using “threats” or “storing” an identified “threat,” let alone storing such “threat” in a database along with its association with a particular threat model component, and even more so with a threat model component that itself is correlated with a third-party diagram component as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’366 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Hurlbut (Ex. 1003 ¶ 33).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“43:21–61. Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments (Pet. Reply 3–5), this “subset” feature shows that the “threats” stored in databases in claim 1 represent “potential events” that may or may not occur depending on the composition of a given system undergoing threat modeling—a system may implicate all stored threats, some of them, or even just one of them, leaving the remaining stored threats for use in preparing threat models for other systems. See PO Sur-reply 2–3 (discussing Figure 2 and arguing that “not every threat is necessarily included in the threat model”). We find the claim language itself supports interpreting “threats” as “potential events that, if they occur, can cause adverse effects to a target system.”” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Claim 1 recites, in part, “the one or more mapping files correlating the threat model components with [“third party diagram components”].” Ex. 1001, 43:30–35. Generally, from the standpoint of what claim 1 requires, the parties’ views of “mapping file” are in alignment. Claim 1 plainly recites that a “mapping file” (where a “file” in the context of computer systems is data itself) correlates data A with data B, and when construed in the context of the subject claim language, correlates threat model components (i.e., data A) with third party diagram components (i.e., data B). We find that this interpretation of “mapping files” is sufficient to resolve the controversy between the parties. See Nidec Motor, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 10,713,366 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,713,366 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01353 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, supported by Dr. Staniford’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and four years of industry experience,” and “would have had a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23, 25). Patent Owner does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We find 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, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther
“We largely agree with Patent Owner that there is no explicit claim- construction dispute. We address Patent Owner’s issues of what ordinarily skilled artisans would have considered in creating and implementing packetfiltering rules in the discussion below. The preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption is one aspect that those with a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attacks would have considered. Nonetheless, overall, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “configured to prevent an exfiltration operation,” does not require preventing all exfiltrations from occurring, nor allowing all non-exfiltration traffic, and that we need not consider the preservation of the flow of normal legitimate network traffic without disruption in the context of that claim construction. We determine that no claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,567,343 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00446 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“how and why persons of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the existing rules to prevent exfiltrations. PO Sur-reply 3. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s assertions to make them “drop” rules, per Sourcefire, relies on what an administrator could have done, not what they would have been motivated to do. Id. at 4–5 (citing Pet. 57–58). We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art, combining Sourcefire and Emerging Threats, would have understood that downloaded rules should be reviewed, and it would have been obvious to enable rules that such persons deemed appropriate. We find Dr. Staniford’s testimony to be persuasive on this point. See Ex. 2011, 67:10–68:24, 69:8–72; Ex. 1020, 109. We acknowledge that downloading all of a particualr ruleset from Emerging Threats and enabling all the rules, might have resulted in a drop in performance of the network appliance, but, at the same time, we are significant drop in performance, especially if a potential threat might be sufficient to warrant a minor performance hit. Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledged at oral hearing that instituting all rules of a set in “alert” mode would not result in a decrease in performance, even though some computational outlay must be engaged to engage those alert rules. See Hr’g Tr. 24:24–25:4. We are persuaded that judiciously implementing certain rules would not necessary result in a network device that is unusable. Additionally, there is testimony from Dr. Staniford that “you start out with your rules in alert because there might be false positives. I mean, for the best rule in the world, Snort wasn’t known for false positives in the rules, when you apply them to a large network.” Ex. 2011, 68:2–7. As such, we continue to determine that it would have been obvious, in combining Sourcefire with Emerging Threats, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have downloaded rules and implemented specific rules.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for petitioner
“Reviewing all of the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the Petition’s obviousness rationale based on Sourcefire and Emerging Threats is not guided by impermissible hindsight bias. We find persuasive Dr. Staniford’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “this rule [SID:2003021] was not directed to looking for instances of exploits or attacks (which would be invisible within the encryption) but rather was looking for exfiltration of some kind of encrypted data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. As discussed by Petitioner, such recognition was also made by Mr. Marinho and Dr. Goodrich, such that the rule would have been understood to possibly prevent exfiltrations. We continue to be persuaded that Petitioner provides that a correspondence exists between the REQUIRE-TLS-1.1-1.2 operator in the ’343 Patent and SID:2003021 in Emerging Threats, in that both detect an SSL/TLS version in application packet header field values to detect exfiltration attempts using out-of-date encryption protocols. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 229–230). We are ’343 Patent discloses the interruption of a similar type of exfiltration, without resorting to impermissible hindsight bias, that Patent Owner asserts. Patent Owner has provided no evidence that Petitioner used the specification of the ’343 Patent to find an applicable rule in Emerging Threats, as opposed to the testified-version provided by Dr. Staniford that he recalls “working on a similar feature where we looked for large encrypted transmissions outbound from the network on non-HTTP ports as a possible symptom of exfiltration of large amounts of data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,567,343 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00119 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9–15, 17, and 18 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 5, 7, 9–11, 13, 15, 17, and 18 are anticipated by Rosenberger; claims 4, 6, 12, and 14 are obvious over Rosenberger and Basye.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Claims must be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citations omitted)). We determine that a specific construction of the term “low power mode” is not necessary to reach a decision in this inter partes review of the challenged claims. Both parties agree that the ordinary and customary meaning of “low power mode” is “an operating mode or state in which power is conserved,” and thus, this is the construction we will use in reaching our patentability determination. As we discuss below, the dispute between the parties concerns when a networked device in Rosenberger exits the low power mode, not whether Rosenberger discloses a low power mode as claimed. As stated by Patent Owner, the dispositive issue in this proceeding is whether Rosenberger “teach[es] a process by which devices in a low power mode remain in that low power mode while exchanging messages with other devices for the purpose of determining whether to exit the low power mode.” PO Resp. 2.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the prior art, the sophistication of the disclosed technology in the ’330 patent, and Dr. Johnson’s testimony, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we determine a person of ordinary skill in the context of the ’330 patent would have had the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (typically denoted as a B.S. degree) in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and approximately 2–4 years of experience in the field of voice and/or audio processing, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Thus, the key issue between the parties is when does Rosenberger exit its low power mode? Petitioner asserts Rosenberger exits its low power mode after the devices exchange weighted signal inputs and after the devices determine which device will respond to a user query, and thus anticipates claims 1, 9, and 17. Patent Owner asserts Rosenberger exits it low power mode upon receiving a trigger word, and thus does not anticipate these claims. Because Rosenberger discloses several different embodiments, to some extent both parties are correct. See Reply 5 (asserting that Patent Owner’s arguments “inappropriately limit Rosenberger’s teachings as a whole to one specific example”); id. at 10–11. We agree with Petitioner, however, that at least one of the embodiments in Rosenberger discloses the claimed invention and thus anticipates claims 1, 9, and 17. Moreover, Patent Owner’s argument “relies on the erroneous assumption that the disclosure of multiple examples renders one example less anticipatory.” Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. VUTEk, Inc., 537 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Regarding the weighted signal, Rosenberger discloses the control device of the invention uses one of several different coordination methods to achieve the design goal of avoiding duplicate responses to the same speech command while selecting a single control device best able to successfully interact with the system user. All of the methods involve the calculation and production by the control device of a numeric weighted signal (WS) that quantifies the “quality” of a just-recognized speech command. Ex. 1003, 10:34–41. Rosenberger also discloses that “there are a number of methods for the devices to be coordinated so that only the single device with the highest weighted signal proceeds to interact with the user and/or process the speech command.” Id. at 11:27–31. Rosenberger discloses that its device D starts out in a “low power ‘listening’ mode.” Id. at 8:17–20. Rosenberger then explains that “[u]pon receiving and recognizing a speech trigger phrase and determining that it is in a better position to handle subsequent user interaction than any other device that simultaneously recognized the same speech trigger phrase” (id. at 8:20–24), the winning device “beeps, changes its status light 34 or plays a prerecorded or synthesized audio message” to prompt the user to state its query. Id. at 8:30–32. This indicates that the determination based on the weighted signal is made while the system is still in low power mode and before the winning device “beeps, changes its status light 34 or plays a prerecorded or synthesized audio message” to prompt the user to state its query” (id.).” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner provides three arguments as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rosenberger with Basye. Pet. 61–62. Petitioner first argues that “Rosenberger and Basye are in the same field of endeavor and relate to voice-controllable computing devices.” Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1003, 1:8–13 (“The present invention relates… to improvements in speech-recognizing control devices that respond to oral commands from a system user to produce a desired effect or result.”); Ex.1013 ¶ 1 (“Computing devices may include speech recognition capabilities…. A computing device may also be capable of processing the recognized speech for specific speech recognition applications.”)); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 182). Second, Petitioner argues that “Rosenberger and Basye both disclose techniques for intelligently ‘waking’ a voice-controllable computing device using a ‘trigger phase’ (or ‘keyword’ or ‘wakeword’ in Basye’s terminology).” Pet. 61–62; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 183. Third, Petitioner argues that “Rosenberger discloses that any ‘control” slip op. at 53
Patent outcomesUS 10,593,330 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,593,330 - Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00118 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 7–11, and 15–18 are anticipated by Rosenberger; claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are obvious over Rosenberger and Basye.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the prior art, the sophistication of the disclosed technology in the ’398 patent, and Dr. Johnson’s testimony, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, we determine a person of ordinary skill in the context of the ’398 patent would have had the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (typically denoted as a B.S. degree) in electrical or computer engineering, or a related field, and approximately 2–4 years of experience in the field of voice and/or audio processing, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Claims must be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 19 F.4th 1325, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citations omitted)). We determine that a specific construction of the term “low power mode” is not necessary to reach a decision in this inter partes review of the challenged claims. Both parties agree that the ordinary and customary meaning of “low power mode” is “an operating mode or state in which power is conserved,” and thus, this is the construction we will use in reaching our patentability determination. As we discuss below, the dispute between the parties concerns when a networked device in Rosenberger exits the low power mode, not whether Rosenberger discloses a low power mode as claimed. As stated by Patent Owner, the dispositive issue in this proceeding is whether Rosenberger “teach[es] a process by which devices in a low power mode remain in that low power mode while exchanging messages with other devices for the purpose of determining whether to exit the low power mode.” PO Resp. 2.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“some extent both parties are correct. See Reply 5 (asserting that Patent Owner’s arguments “inappropriately limit Rosenberger’s teachings as a whole to one specific example”); id. at 10–11. We agree with Petitioner, however, that at least one of the embodiments in Rosenberger discloses the claimed invention and thus anticipates claims 1, 9, and 16. Moreover, Patent Owner’s argument “relies on the erroneous assumption that the disclosure of multiple examples renders one example less anticipatory.” Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. VUTEk, Inc., 537 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Regarding the weighted signal, Rosenberger discloses the control device of the invention uses one of several different coordination methods to achieve the design goal of avoiding duplicate responses to the same speech command while selecting a single control device best able to successfully interact with the system user. All of the methods involve the calculation and production by the control device of a numeric weighted signal (WS) that quantifies the “quality of a just-recognized speech command.” slip op. at 39
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner asserts: it would not have been obvious to modify Rosenberger in accordance with the teachings of Basye to not perform speech recognition on the audio data that corresponds to an utterance of the particular, predefined hotword (Pet. 69-73), as recited, because the entire premise of Rosenberger’s invention is to perform speech recognition. PO Resp. 47 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 111). According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill “would not have been motivated to modify Rosenberger such that its computing device no longer performs speech recognition on the audio data corresponding to the trigger phrase (alleged ‘hotword’) because the proposed modification alters the speech recognition principles forming the entire premise of Rosenberger.” PO Resp. 51 (citing 2012 ¶¶ 109–114). As we have noted above, the summary of the invention disclosed in the ’398 patent states “each time the words ‘OK computer’ [the chosen “hotword”] are spoken, it is picked up by a microphone, conveyed to the system, which performs speech recognition techniques to determine whether the hotword was spoken and, if so, awaits an ensuing command or query. Ex. 1001, 1:62–66. Thus, before the “the output of processing the audio data” is transmitted, the system first uses “speech recognition techniques” to determine whether the words spoken are, in fact, the adopted “hotword.” The ’398 patent does not define how “speech recognition techniques” differ from “speech recognition.” To the extent there is a substantive difference, Petitioner relies on Basye. As Petitioner explains, using Basye instead of Rosenberger’s speech recognition, would “help reduce ‘false positive’ detections of a ‘trigger phrase’ (or ‘wakeword’).” Pet. 68 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 210). Petitioner also asserts that “Bayse explains that the use of ‘thresholding’ can help reduce false positives, which is a situation where a computing device incorrectly determines that speech is present or that speech includes a wakeword.” Id. (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 51, 74–75). This provides a good reason why a person of ordinary skill would want to modify, and improve, Rosenberger’s performance.” slip op. at 50
Patent outcomesUS 10,134,398 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,134,398 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 15, 2024 · IPR2022-01525 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 6–14, and 16–20 are anticipated by IPUG; claims 5 and 15 are obvious over IPUG; additional Altman-based grounds also apply.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“Claim 1 recites that, based on comparing flow identification data with a list of identification data, a packet associated with a match is decrypted and a “corresponding action” is taken on the decrypted packet associated a result of a match, the claim does not limit the action itself, i.e., any action is a “corresponding action” as long as that action is “associated with the match [of the] data on the list.” Id. at 18:13–16. Both parties agree that the examples of such actions in the Specification are exemplary and not limiting. See, e.g., PO Resp. 11 (“[Patent Owner] did not (and does not) attempt to limit the ‘corresponding action’ to any particular action or actions.”). The ’526 patent explicitly describes “blocking” a communication as an “action.” Id. at 6:61–66. As “allowing” a packet is the opposite of “blocking” a packet, in the context of the ’526 patent, “allowing” a packet also constitutes an “action.” Nevertheless, Patent Owner attempts to exclude allowing a packet from the scope of the claimed corresponding action by arguing that the differentiation between claim elements requires construing “performing a corresponding action” to mean more than simply allowing the packets. PO Resp. 10–11 (citing Prelim. Resp. 2, 23–24); PO Sur-reply 5–7. Patent Owner states that other claim limitations, e.g., “comparing the identified flow data with the list of the identification data” (step 1[e]), are recited separately from “performing a corresponding action on each packet of the encrypted communication flow associated with the match data on the list.” PO Sur-reply 7. Patent Owner argues that, for this reason, a construction of “performing a corresponding action” in step 1[f] that does not require some action, other than re-encrypting and transmitting the packets, renders the limitations superfluous. Id. (arguing that different claim terms are presumed to have different scope, citing CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). result. In the ’526 patent claims, the action taken on a packet in step 1[f], e.g., blocking or allowing and logging a communication as discussed in the patent, or merely allowing a communication (the opposite of blocking a communication), is an action on a decrypted packet that corresponds to a “packet of the encrypted communication flow associated with the match with data of the list” (step 1[e]). As Patent Owner acknowledges, the claims do not limit those actions. Thus, the comparing of step 1[e] and the action of allowing the transmission taken in step 1[f] are of different scope. Similarly (and consistent with Patent Owner’s analysis), the further steps of re-encrypting and transmitting the packet in step 1[g] are taken “after performing the corresponding action,” e.g., after allowing the packet, and are presumed to be of different scope from the allowing action in step 1[f]. Ex. 1001, 18:17. Re-encrypting and transmitting a packet that was previously decrypted as matched against flow identification criteria and determined to meet criteria allowing the packet to be transmitted without some other action, are not superfluous steps. Thus, as used in the claims of the ’526 patent, we determine that a “corresponding action” includes any action, including the action of allowing a further transmission of a packet, without further action.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s emphasis on indexing is misplaced. In Acceleration Bay, the court affirmed the Board’s findings that the subject reference (Lin) was not meaningfully indexed because the website allowed a user to view a list of technical reports indexed only by author or year and its advanced search form was not reliable. Acceleration Bay, 908 F.3d at 773–74. In Blue Calypso, the court noted that there was no evidence a party could navigate from a university’s website concerning common subject matter to the reference itself, i.e., the personal webpage of Ratsimor. Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1350. The facts of Acceleration Bay and Blue Calypso are distinguished from the present circumstances where Cisco’s networking products were well known to persons of ordinary skill and the reference is a page on Cisco’s own website. Inc. v. Premier Election Sols., Inc., 698 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In Voter Verified, the court addressed an article (Benson) posted to an on-line publication (Risks Digest) concerning the claimed subject matter (risks of computer automation), noting that Risks Digest was a prominent forum for discussing such technologies (over 100 articles relating to electronic on-line voting). Voter Verified¸ 698 F.3d at 1380–81. The article’s publication on a site interested persons of ordinary skill would have recognized as important “overcame the absence of evidence that the website at which the article was located was indexed and thereby findable by an internet search engine.” See Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1349 (discussing Voter Verified); Voter Verified¸ 698 F.3d at 1380–81. In Voter Verified the court stated: The Risks Digest website was undisputedly open to any internet user by the critical date. Whether or not the website itself had been indexed by 1999 (through search engines or otherwise), the uncontested evidence indicates that a person of ordinary skill interested in electronic voting would have been independently aware of the Risks Digest as a prominent forum for discussing such technologies. And upon accessing the Risks Digest website, such an interested researcher would have found the Benson article using that website’s own search functions and applying reasonable diligence. In short, the Benson article was publicly available by the critical date and therefore qualifies as a prior art “printed publication” under § 102(b). Voter Verified, 698 F.3d at 1381. Dr. Prakash testified that a person of ordinary skill would have looked for product manuals and product descriptions concerning the relevant subject matter from other vendors in addition to Cisco, including BlueCoat, Sophos, Trend Micro, and Palo Alto Networks. Ex. 1002, Prakash Decl. ¶ 129. Guide provides instructions for setting up, administering, and monitoring the IronPort Web Security appliance.” Ex. 1008, 27. Where a document’s “purpose is ‘dialogue with the intended audience,’ that purpose indicates public accessibility.” Valve, 8 F.4th at 1374 (quoting Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The IPUG document bears the date of November, 2010, on its title page, as well as a copyright date of 2010. Ex. 1008, 1–2; Ex. 1010, 18–19. Although Patent Owner argues the copyright date on the document is hearsay, we do not rely solely on the reference’s copyright notice. The Wayback Machine indicates IPUG was archived before the July 24, 2017 filing date of the provisional application from which the ’526 patent claims priority. Ex. 1001 (code 60), 1:6–9; Ex. 1010, Frank-White Decl. (Ex. A), 5 (Wayback Archive Page of Dec. 29, 2103 identifying IPUG as available on Cisco’s website as of Dec. 29, 2013), 6, 8 (Wayback Archive Page listing IPUG available on Cisco’s website on March 1, 2017), 11–12 (Wayback Archive Page of March 9, 2010 identifying IPUG product).” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“Patent Owner’s argument that the NMC drops the traffic after analysis and never re-encrypts is unavailing, as further evidenced by Dr. Goodrich’s deposition testimony. Altman’s NMC does not function to re-encrypt and transmit traffic, but instead uses unencrypted data from the SIA to determine whether to instruct the SIA, which functions as the Man-In-The-Middle, to block or re-encrypt and transmit packets. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 31–33; Ex. 1014, Goodrich Tr. 42:18–22 (agreeing that Altman does not describe the NMC itself as accepting or processing encrypted communications), 38:12–15 (agreeing that the SIA responds to instructions from the NMC). sufficiently that Altman at least suggests re-encrypting the decrypted traffic after performing the corresponding action as recited in claim limitations 1[f] and 1[g]. Dec. to Inst. 49–50. As discussed below, having reviewed the arguments and evidence of record, we are also persuaded that a skilled artisan would reasonably understand or infer limitation 1[g] from Altman’s disclosure. See Dayco Prods., 329 F.3d at 1368 (stating that “the dispositive question regarding anticipation is whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the prior art reference’s teaching that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference”). Patent Owner’s citation to Exhibit 1007 (Netronome) as “showing a similar out-of-band9 analysis” informs our understanding of what a person of ordinary skill would reasonably understand or infer from Altman. PO Resp. 47; Ex. 1005 ¶ 12. Netronome, incorporated into Altman by reference, discloses an embodiment for plaintext inspection of SSL-encrypted flows, using a proxy to examine and inspect the SSL-encrypted content before entering or exiting an enterprise. Ex. 1007, 2; Ex. 1005 ¶ 12. In one Netronome embodiment, each individual session terminates on the SSL inspector, but TCP connections are retained end-to-end. Ex. 1007, 6. Terminating and re-originating SSL allows the appliance to obtain plaintext in the encrypted signal that is sent to an adjacent security appliance in a regenerated TCP stream; the data remains encrypted on both the connection 9 Neither the ’526 patent nor Altman uses the term “out of band.” Ex. 1014, Goodrich Tr. 35:19–25. As to Altman, Dr. Goodrich appears to be referring to copies of data flows decrypted by the SIA and received by the NMC as “out of band” content. Id. at 46:11–16 (noting that the NMC is never disclosed as processing flows where it would be sending packets back to a destination); see also id. at 36:3–22. server. Ex. 1007, 6. Petitioner’s Altman-based challenges do not rely on Netronome,” slip op. at 56
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“The Petition asserts that IPUG discloses elements 1[f] and 1[g] because IPUG discloses that when encrypted data in an HTTPS connection are received, the appliance (1) decrypts the received encrypted data, if the URL category (the claimed “identified flow identification data”) matches the data in the Decryption Policies, (2) applies the Access Policies to the decrypted plaintext traffic, (3) if the Access Policies allow the traffic, intended destination. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008, 257, 268–69; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 224–229, 232–233).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 10,284,526 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,284,526 - Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · IPR2022-01489 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable: Hendrix anticipates them, and the listed combinations also render their respective claims obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“In the Decision on Institution, we adopted a slightly modified version of this definition in which we removed the open-ended term “at least.” Inst. Dec. 10–11. Patent Owner does not address the definition of a POSA. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner’s declarant Dr. Clemens applies Petitioner’s definition, but does not opine on whether it is correct. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 22–23. As in the Decision on Institution (Inst. Dec. 10), we apply the same slightly modified version of Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art that removes the open-ended term “at least.” We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ794 patent and the” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“filter comprises “a third set of layers on the second side, whether the third set of layers includes oxygen.” Ex. 1001, 10:41–49. Petitioner argues that the proper construction of this limitation “means that there is a third set of layers on the opposite side of the substrate, whether or not [the layers] include oxygen” – i.e., that the third set of layers do not need to include oxygen. Pet. 7–8. Patent Owner agrees that this is the “literal” reading of the language, but contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have appreciated that this language was intended to read ‘wherein’ rather than ‘whether’” and that the claim requires that this set of layers must include oxygen. PO Resp. 24–26 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–55). We agree with Petitioner’s representation that each of the challenges presented either anticipates or renders obvious a third set of layers with oxygen on a second side of a substrate (Pet. 8) and therefore, no claim construction is necessary for this term. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“415 F.3d at 1314): “a first set of layers on the first side, wherein the first set of layers includes silicon and hydrogen” (claim 1) and “a first set of layers including silicon and hydrogen” (claims 9 and 15). Ex. 1001, 10:41–49, 10:65–11:4, 11:17–12:5. As the parties agree, these recitations are broadly worded. See Pet. 14 (describing the recitations of the claims as “broad” and directed to “layers of any material that has both ‘silicon and hydrogen’”); PO Resp. 42 (describing the claims as “simply specifying physical layers including silicon and hydrogen in them”), 44 (describing the disputed terms as “open-ended claiming of layers including hydrogen and silicon”). Despite this broad language, Patent Owner contends that we must read “layers including silicon and hydrogen” in conjunction with other limitations in the claims reciting a “near infrared bandpass filter.” PO Resp. 35–37 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 65–66). For purposes of our analysis, we limit “layers including silicon and hydrogen” to only materials suitable for NIR bandpass filters, as suggested by Patent Owner. We next examine the rest of the intrinsic evidence. The specification of the ’794 patent does not contain language that generally describes “layers including silicon and hydrogen.” Instead, the specification describes only layers of hydrogenated silicon: its abstract is directed to an “optical filter” that “includes a filter stack formed of hydrogenated silicon layers” (Ex. 1001, code (57)); the technical field of the invention is described as “relat[ing] to optical filters including hydrogenated silicon layers and to sensor systems comprising such optical filters” (id. at 1:20–23); the summary of the invention describes “the present invention” as an optical filter or sensor system “comprising” “a plurality of hydrogenated silicon layers” (id. at 2:57–3:19); and the detailed description begins with a hydrogenated silicon (Si:H) layers” (id. at 4:19–20). The specification only mentions silicon and hydrogen separately with respect to the disclosed sputter-deposition system “used to produce the hydrogenated silicon material.” Id. at 4:35–5:61, 7:10–19. In particular, the specification describes how “cathode 430 includes a silicon target 431, which is sputtered in the presence of hydrogen (H2), as well as an inert gas such as argon, to deposit the hydrogenated silicon material as a layer on the substrate 420.” Id. at 4:44–47. The specification also describes how altering the hydrogen flow rate in the deposition process affects the optical properties of hydrogenated silicon produced by the deposition system. See id. at 5:1–61. But the only end product described from the sputter-deposition process using silicon and hydrogen is hydrogenated silicon. See id. at 4:35–5:61, 7:10–19. As such, the specification does not provide any indication of materials beyond hydrogenated silicon that are within the scope of “layers including silicon and hydrogen.”” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“hydrogen” defines a genus. The test for providing a written description that supports a genus claim is whether the description provides “either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). “Regarding whether common structural features must exist between a claim and a putative priority disclosure, those features must constitute the near-entirety of the structures being compared.” Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 61 F.4th 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Yet the patentees only disclosed hydrogenated silicon as a possible species. Indeed, the specification focuses on a singular example of a sputterdeposition system that is used to produce an improved hydrogenated silicon material. See Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 36–38. Patent Owner cites this deposition process as written description support for “the claimed layers containing silicon and hydrogen.” See PO Resp. 44. But this example supports only how to make hydrogenated silicon and does not include any indication about what other materials would be within the scope of the claimed genus. Under these circumstances, the specification’s disclosure of a single species is not an adequate number to show possession of the entire genus of “layers including silicon and hydrogen.” Beyond the disclosure of the sputter-deposition process for producing hydrogenated silicon, Patent Owner does not identify—and we cannot discern—any other examples of a “structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350. This is particularly noteworthy given that undisputed record evidence shows numerous other potential filter materials “including silicon and hydrogen.” See supra § II.D.1.a. In the absence of structural description supporting “layers including silicon and hydrogen,” we determine that an” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 11,131,794 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,131,794
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.