• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01169 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

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

  • BurdenMixed

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

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

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

  • BurdenMixed

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

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

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

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,586,849 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,586,849
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00810 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–7 are unpatentable as anticipated by Silberschatz; Petitioner did not show claims 4 and 8 unpatentable because Silberschatz does not disclose allocating or de-allocating a specific telecommunications resource.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In this case, the ’637 patent discloses multiple embodiments of telephony and telecommunication resources being allocated and de-allocated, but during prosecution, the applicant removed the modifying limitation of “telecommunication”3 leaving only the term “resource” in the issued claims. Compare Ex. 1004, 60–69 (Application No. 09/072,436) with Ex. 1002, 44–47. The claims, thus, recite “resource” and do not recite “telecommunications resource” nor do they recite “computer resource.” The lack of a limiting term modifying “resource” indicates a scope broader than the scope encompassed by a “resource” that is limited to only a “telecommunications resource” or “computer resource.” Moreover, the Examiner characterized the claims of the application that issued as the ’637 patent as “broader in scope than the claims [in] the parent patent.” Ex. 1002, 95. The Applicant did not dispute the Examiner’s characterization of the claims. Id. at 107. Although the ’637 patent discloses embodiments using “resources,” the ’637 patent does not define explicitly the term “resource.” Therefore, we look to the ordinary meaning of the term as would be understood by one of 3 The term “telecommunication” was recited in the proposed claims of earlier-filed parent Application No. 09/072,436. The ’637 patent claims priority to patent Application No. 09/072,436. See Ex. 1002, 1. ordinary skill in the art. A technical dictionary, IEEE Dictionary4, defines “resource” as “[a]ny capability that must be scheduled, assigned, or controlled by the underlying implementation to assure non[-]conflicting usage by processes.” Id. at 976. As shown by the dictionary definition, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “resource” is not limited to a telecommunications resource or a computer resource.5 Thus, the ordinary meaning of “resource” is consistent with the term’s use in the ’637 patent, which readily interchanges the term “resources” with “components” and “capability” in the context of computer telephony resources. Ex. 1001, 1:27–29. For example, in one embodiment in the ’637 patent, the telecommunication “resource” is a telephony line card that is coupled to a telephone. Id. at 9:12–15. In other embodiments, the telecommunication “resources” are components or ports coupled via a data bus to a central processing unit system, a data port system, a video system, a network system, a storage controller, and a high speed communication system. Id. at 8:1–27, 10:64–11:10, 11:14–22. In every embodiment in the ’637 patent, 4 IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms: Seventh Edition (Standards Information Network, IEEE Press ©2000) (Ex. 3001) (hereinafter “IEEE Dictionary”). 5 Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Forys, testified on cross-examination that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have telecommunications experience because all of the embodiments in the ’637 patent are directed to telecommunications. Ex. 2002, 47:2–14. Based on this testimony, Patent Owner argues that the ’637 patent would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of a telecommunications systems. PO Resp. 8–9. We agree the ’637 patent may have been understood in the context of a telecommunications system, however, that does not indicate that a skilled artisan would have understood “resource” to have been limited to only a telecommunications resource. resources are a component or capability of a system that is managed (i.e., identified, allocated, de-allocated) by some module in the service kernel. Id. at 9:27–39, 10:10–14, 10:64–11:10, 11:14–22. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s position, because” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Forys, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’637 patent “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field and one year to two years of industry experience in telecommunications.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 32. Patent Owner does not disagree with Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of skill in the art, nor does Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Akl, offer any contrary explanation regarding who would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’637 patent. PO Resp. 9–10; Ex. 2003 ¶ 42. Based on our review of the ’637 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’637 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a similar discipline, and at least one year of work experience in telecommunications technologies. We further note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 16

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

    “We do agree with Patent Owner’s argument, however, with regards to dependent claims 4 and 8, which require the return of “the allocated telecommunications resources to control of the management module.” Ex. 1001, 21:52–22:6, 22:44–52; see supra, Section II.A.3. Petitioner has not indicated a disclosure in Silberschatz that demonstrates the allocation or de-allocation of a specific telecommunications resource. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show Silberschatz anticipates dependent claims 4 and 8.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner’s position, because Petitioner identifies CPU time as a specific resource that is requested (Pet. 23–24), allocated (id. at 25), used (id. at 25), and de-allocated (id. at 26). We credit the testimony of Dr. Forys, who explains how and where Silberschatz discloses each element of the challenged claims. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–80. Specifically, Dr. Forys testifies regarding the request, allocation, use, and de-allocation of a single type of resource (e.g., CPU time), thereby meeting the limitations of the challenged claims. Id. ¶¶ 74–80. Although Patent Owner correctly points out that Petitioner discusses multiple types of resources, we do not agree that Petitioner discusses or applies the disclosure of Silberschatz inconsistently, because Petitioner at least consistently identifies CPU time as a resource requested, allocated, used, and de-allocated.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,324,637 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,324,637
• Digital Ally, Inc. v. Utility Associates, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 27, 2015 · IPR2014-00725 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9, 10, and 12–25 are unpatentable; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable because the petitioner did not explain why the Monroe ’320 multiplexer would perform compression.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the types of problems encountered in the art and the prior art solutions to those problems. See In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The ’556 patent explains that: The VCR is a technical device nearing the end of its lifecycle; therefore, no serious advancements are on the drawing board that address the numerous technical issues incumbent to videotape recording. On the other hand, digital capture and storage is at the beginning of its technological curve, with rapid development of new devices. The only available means to ensure sufficient quality and control of video recording, access, and storage is an increase in the number of well-trained persons with those responsibilities. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 29–37 (emphasis added). In other words, the ’556 patent focuses on transitioning surveillance systems from outdated VCR technology to the rapidly developing technology of digital capture and storage. Id. This is also reflected in the claims of the ’556 patent, which recite “capturing,” “integrating,” and “storing” information. See, e.g., id. at col. 8, ll. 44–49. Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, thus, appropriately includes an education in electrical engineering or computer science and experience in signal processing, or other related disciplines. Ex. 1003 ¶ 39.” slip op. at 4

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

    “Petitioner submits evidence showing that the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “vehicle” is any means of carrying or transporting something and, thus, includes an aircraft. Pet. 19–20; Ex. 1007, 4. This definition is consistent with the Specification of the ’556 patent, which indicates that the disclosed surveillance system has “airline applications.” Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 15–19. Patent Owner, on the other hand, identifies portions of the Specification and prosecution history that describe a land-based, first-responder vehicle as an example of a vehicle. PO Resp. 17–18; Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 39–44 (“The embodiment disclosed herein is used in a police car,” but “the present invention is not limited to this example.”) (emphasis added); Ex. 1002, 59 (“The present invention is used for emergency response vehicles, such as police cars, ambulances, and the like.”) (emphasis added). But the Specification shows that the term “vehicle” is broader. Namely, the ’556 patent states that the disclosed surveillance system is “for use in public and commercial vehicles” and “can be deployed on police, fire, and rescue vehicles and is adaptable for use on transportation and industry vehicles, as well as having rail and airline applications.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 7–10, col. 2, ll. 15–19. Therefore, we decline to limit the term “vehicle” to particular examples in the Specification or prosecution history. See Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 726 F.3d 1296, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013).” slip op. at 7

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

    “The parties agree that the term “integrating” refers to “combining.” Pet. 21; PO Resp. 37. This is consistent with the Specification of the ’556 patent, which states: “The captured data from the sixteen inputs . . . are . . . combined with the video and audio information . . . to create aggregated documentation that is sent to a storage unit 270 in one data stream.” Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 28–34 (emphasis added). The parties also agree that the term “integrating” does not include superimposing, mixing, laying over, or layering. Pet. 21–22; PO Resp. 36–37; Ex. 1003 ¶ 49; Tr. 9:1–9. This is consistent with statements made by the patentee during prosecution of the application that issued as the ’556 patent. Ex. 1002, 129–30.” slip op. at 10

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

    “unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Monroe ’320. Pet. 12. A claim is anticipated if each limitation of the claim is disclosed in a single prior art reference arranged as in the claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Petitioner provides detailed explanations and evidence showing how Monroe ’320 discloses each claim limitation as arranged in the claims. Pet. 30–38, 42–43, 45–51, 53–55. We have considered the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, and we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 9, 13–18, and 20–25 are unpatentable as anticipated by Monroe ’320. We address below Patent Owner’s arguments. 1. Monroe ’320 Monroe ’320 discloses a surveillance system for aircraft, ships, and land vehicles. Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 27–34, col. 1, ll. 60–65. The surveillance system in Monroe ’320 includes video cameras, microphones, and sensors for capturing video, audio, and data information, respectively. Id. at col. 22, ll. 4–10, col. 22, ll. 40–44, col. 22, ll. 48–51, Fig. 15. Monroe ’320 discloses a digital multiplexer network that combines the video, audio, and data into a combined, comprehensive output signal. Id. at col. 22, ll. 57–64, col. 23, ll. 15–17, Fig. 15. Monroe ’320 discloses storing the combined, comprehensive output signal on a recorder in the vehicle and transmitting the combined, comprehensive output signal to a ground station. Id. at col. 23, ll. 10–12, col. 23, ll. 17–22.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 6,831,556 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,831,556

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.