• Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,567,343
• Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01329 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Law; the Board did not reach the additional grounds based on Wood or Jungck.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, supported by Dr. Jacobson’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, four years of professional experience, and a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attack.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner cites to the ’1154 decision, and that panel’s assertion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it is the level that it adopts. PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 25–30). Reviewing both statements, we determine no substantive differences between the two, and continue to adopt the level adopted in the Decision to Institute. See Dec. to Inst. 12–13.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner argues that the preambles of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 should be found to be limiting because those preambles provide antecedent basis for multiple limitations recited later in the claims, and because the limitations in the preambles “give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claims. PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 38–39; Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Per the Institution Decision, we continue to find the preambles of the independent claims to be limiting. See Dec. to Inst. 14.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. A review of the ’266 Patent does not show the disclosure of “initial dynamic security policy,” or equivalent, and the cited sections (Ex. 1001, 14:13–31) also do not discuss such extra limitations. The ’266 Patent provides: Security policy management server 120 may be configured to communicate one or more dynamic security policies to one or more packet security gateways within network environment 100. … For example, security policy management server 120 may be configured to communicate one or more dynamic security policies to one or more of packet security gateways 112, 114, 116, and 118 on a periodic basis, under specified network conditions, whenever security policy management server 120 receives a new dynamic security policy, whenever a dynamic security policy stored on security policy management server 120 is changed or altered, or in response to a request from one or more of packet security gateways 112, 114, 116, and 118. Ex. 1001, 13:35–50 (emphasis added). Per this disclosure, the PSGs may receive multiple DSPs from the SPMS, with different PSGs receiving different DSPs. This disclosure undercuts the argument that the first set of packet filtering rules needs to be an initial set. We also disagree that this would require the PSGs to produce DSPs; rather, the SPMS would still create and update the DSPs, on an on-going basis, such that a second set can be updated by third set, with that second set being an initial set with respect to the third set, etc. Additionally, the structure of independent claim 1, for example, is directed to a method of filtering packets, such that the claim may read upon a network environment where the plurality of PSGs already contain a DSP, application of another DSP with a first set of packet rules, that are subsequently updated. As such, we are unpersuaded that the implicit claim construction determined in the Institution Decision was incorrect and not in keeping with the language of the claim and the scope of the disclosure of the ’266 Patent.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner also cites claim constructions that have been adopted in previous IPR proceedings (PO Resp. 12–13), but asserts that “these proceedings do not turn on these constructions, and thus these constructions are not necessary. Id. (citing See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with Patent Owner with respect to the additional listed claim limitations and determine that no other claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,785,266 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,785,266
• Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00445 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Law; the Board did not reach the additional grounds based on Wood or Jungck.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, supported by Dr. Jacobson’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, four years of professional experience, and a working knowledge of packet-switched networking, firewalls, security policies, communication protocols and layers, and the use of customized rules to address cyber-attack.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner cites to the ’1154 decision, and that panel’s assertion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it is the level that it adopts. PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 25–30). Reviewing both statements, we determine no substantive differences between the two, and continue to adopt the level adopted in the Decision to Institute. See Dec. to Inst. 12–13.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner argues that the preambles of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 should be found to be limiting because those preambles provide antecedent basis for multiple limitations recited later in the claims, and because the limitations in the preambles “give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claims. PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 38–39; Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Per the Institution Decision, we continue to find the preambles of the independent claims to be limiting. See Dec. to Inst. 14.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. A review of the ’266 Patent does not show the disclosure of “initial dynamic security policy,” or equivalent, and the cited sections (Ex. 1001, 14:13–31) also do not discuss such extra limitations. The ’266 Patent provides: Security policy management server 120 may be configured to communicate one or more dynamic security policies to one or more packet security gateways within network environment 100. … For example, security policy management server 120 may be configured to communicate one or more dynamic security policies to one or more of packet security gateways 112, 114, 116, and 118 on a periodic basis, under specified network conditions, whenever security policy management server 120 receives a new dynamic security policy, whenever a dynamic security policy stored on security policy management server 120 is changed or altered, or in response to a request from one or more of packet security gateways 112, 114, 116, and 118. Ex. 1001, 13:35–50 (emphasis added). Per this disclosure, the PSGs may receive multiple DSPs from the SPMS, with different PSGs receiving different DSPs. This disclosure undercuts the argument that the first set of packet filtering rules needs to be an initial set. We also disagree that this would require the PSGs to produce DSPs; rather, the SPMS would still create and update the DSPs, on an on-going basis, such that a second set can be updated by third set, with that second set being an initial set with respect to the third set, etc. Additionally, the structure of independent claim 1, for example, is directed to a method of filtering packets, such that the claim may read upon a network environment where the plurality of PSGs already contain a DSP, application of another DSP with a first set of packet rules, that are subsequently updated. As such, we are unpersuaded that the implicit claim construction determined in the Institution Decision was incorrect and not in keeping with the language of the claim and the scope of the disclosure of the ’266 Patent.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner also cites claim constructions that have been adopted in previous IPR proceedings (PO Resp. 12–13), but asserts that “these proceedings do not turn on these constructions, and thus these constructions are not necessary. Id. (citing See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with Patent Owner with respect to the additional listed claim limitations and determine that no other claim terms need to be construed expressly for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,785,266 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,785,266
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2023-01321 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 and 37–58 are unpatentable as obvious over Karlsson and Harbers, with Gotou or Braun added for certain dependent claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, except that we omitted the qualifier “at least” and set the level of experience at two years. See Ins. Dec. 8. In its Response, Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute the Board’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 20. We accordingly maintain the level of ordinary skill in the art we adopted in the Institution Decision. B.” slip op. at 7

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

    “At institution, we interpreted the term “light source” as the Specification defines it: “any system that is capable of receiving an electrical signal and producing light in response to the signal.” Inst. Dec. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:7–10 (“As used herein, the term ‘light source’, LED or ‘solid state light source’ means any system that is capable of receiving an electrical signal and producing light in response to the signal.”)). Patent Owner agrees with that construction. See PO Resp. 20. However, the reason we interpreted “light source” in the institution decision was that there may have been a question about whether the individual “microbeams” described in the Beam reference were “light sources.” Because, as explained below, we do not reach the Beam grounds, we need not construe “light source” in this final decision. We further conclude that that no other express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “III. CONCLUSION Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1–19 and 37–58 of U.S. Patent 10,894,503 B2 are unpatentable.9” slip op. at 26

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

    “We have reviewed Petitioner’s mapping of the claims to Karlsson (see Pet. 100–122) and conclude that Petitioner has shown that it discloses the subject matter of claim 1. As described above, Karlsson discloses a vehicle headlight system with a plurality of light clusters. The headlamps are capable of projecting light to illuminate sub-sections of a field-of-view with different illumination characteristics, the subsections being determined in response to sensor data indicating oncoming traffic. Control circuitry operates the light clusters and sensors obtain and provide data pertinent to the illumination requirements. A controller uses the sensor data to determine an illumination scheme that reduces illumination in a first subsection (i.e., one with the oncoming traffic) in order to reduce glare.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00335 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 and 37–58 are unpatentable as obvious over Karlsson and Harbers, with Gotou or Braun added for certain dependent claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, except that we omitted the qualifier “at least” and set the level of experience at two years. See Ins. Dec. 8. In its Response, Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute the Board’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 20. We accordingly maintain the level of ordinary skill in the art we adopted in the Institution Decision. B.” slip op. at 7

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

    “However, the reason we interpreted “light source” in the institution decision was that there may have been a question about whether the individual “microbeams” described in the Beam reference were “light sources.” Because, as explained below, we do not reach the Beam grounds, we need not construe “light source” in this final decision. We further conclude that that no other express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We addressed this issue at institution, explaining that “we understand the asserted combinations” and that “[a]ssertions that both references disclose a particular claim element do not undermine or overly cloud Petitioner’s asserted combinations.” Inst. Dec. 14. That remains the case. Patent Owner’s attempt to spin some loose language in the Petition into “47 grounds” (PO Resp. 13) is not persuasive, particularly after the institution decision, in which we explained how we viewed the combinations presented by Petitioner. See Inst. Dec. 10–13. The combinations are simply not as multiplicated and complicated as Patent Owner contends, and Patent Owner acknowledged at the hearing that the alleged multiplicity did not prevent it from addressing any issue. See Tr. 36:1–2 (“[Q]: Which of these did you address in your papers? [A]: We address every single one for every single claim.”). Patent Owner also argues that “[the] lack of particularity is compounded by Petitioner’s other two petitions challenging the ’503 Patent that suffer the same lack of particularity issues––meaning Petitioner has asserted at least 149 grounds.” PO Resp. 32 (emphasis omitted). We again disagree with Patent Owner’s assessment of the number of “sub-grounds” at issue, and conclude, as we did at institution, that three petitions were justified given the number of asserted claims and differences in claim scope. See Inst. Dec. 14.” slip op. at 9

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

    “This is not persuasive because Karlsson teaches that “light beam 7 . . . [is] controlled in such a manner that no light at all or light having a low intensity is emitted in those directions from which light is detected [such that] glaring or blinding of oncoming traffic is effectively prevented.” Ex. 1010, 9:18–26 (emphasis added); see Ex. 2006 ¶ 251. Light at a low intensity is “illumination,” even under the definition Patent Owner offers in the Response. See PO Resp. 64 (“The plain meaning of illuminate is ‘to supply or brighten with light’ or ‘to make luminous or shining.’”) That Petitioner may have described the shaded portions of Karlsson’s Figure 14 as having “no intensity,” is immaterial in view Karlsson’s “low intensity” disclosure, which Petitioner also cited. See Pet. 94–95.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2023-01320 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 26–28, 30–36, 65–68, and 70 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 29 and 69 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish sensed fog or snow.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “At institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, except that we omitted the qualifier “at least” and set the level of experience at two years. See Inst. Dec. 8. In its Response, Patent Owner stated that it “does not dispute the Board’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 3. We accordingly maintain the level of ordinary skill in the art we adopted in the Institution Decision. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “However, the reason we interpreted “light source” in the institution decision was that there was a question about whether the individual “microbeams” described in the Beam reference were “light sources.” See Inst. Dec. 11. Because, as explained below, we do not reach the Beam grounds, we need not construe “light source” in this final decision. We further find that that no other express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenMixed

    “measurement by sensor 9 is not affected by “scattered reflected light” due to “dirty cover glass 19”). Moreover, even if fog or snow might make the cover glass “dirty” nothing in Karlsson senses that. Instead, the reference simply explains that the switching of the light is helpful if the glass happens to be dirty. Sensor 9 is used to detect light, such as from oncoming vehicles, not fog or snow (see Ex. 1010, 9:9–26), and none of the other passages of Karlsson cited in the Petition describe sensing fog or snow. Petitioner does not identify anything in Harbers that senses fog or snow, and we do not find a description of that ourselves. Harbers describes adjusting the light based on vehicle velocity, the position of the steering wheel, “weather conditions,” or road type (e.g., motorway or country road). See Ex. 1011, 3:27–4:32. It seems reasonable to assume that the velocity and position of the steering wheel are sensed, and the reference indicates that light distribution for road type can be adjusted “by the driver.” Id. at 4:22–25. The reference is silent, however, on how the adjustment based on “weather conditions” is made. Dr. Jiao cites a passage from Braun about how its “headlights . . . are programmed . . . to detect fog and . . . provide light appropriate for driving in fog” (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 590), but Braun is not included in this ground in the Petition (see Pet. 3), and neither Petitioner not Dr. Jiao attempts to provide a reason to combine Braun for these claims. We conclude that, in order to show that these claims would have been obvious, Petitioner would have needed to show that sensing would have been disclosed or inherent in the Harbers/Karlsson combination, obvious in view of Karlsson and Harbers, or that it would have been obvious to add Braun’s fog detection to the Karlsson/Harbers combination. As Petitioner did not argue an express or inherent disclosure of fog/snow sensing in Harbers/Karlsson, did not argue that it would have been obvious to use fog/snow sensing in the Karlsson/Harbers combination, and did not include Braun in the combination, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown that claims 29 and 69 are unpatentable” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “This argument is not persuasive because, we conclude, it overstates the problem. These claims require bluish light towards the center and yellowish light to the side. Were an oncoming vehicle in the yellow area, corresponding yellow lights would be dimmed. Were the oncoming vehicle then moved to straddle the yellow and blue areas, the corresponding yellow and blue lights would be dimmed. And if the vehicle were to move to the blue area, the corresponding blue lights would be dimmed. We agree with Dr. Jiao that one of ordinary skill in this art, which is fairly predictable, would be able to avoid or sufficiently minimize any color shifting problems. See Ex. 1051 ¶¶ 162–165. We also credit Dr. Jiao’s explanation that, in the combination, there would only be “subtle variations of illuminated color within the range, such as bluish white and yellowish white” and that “all light would be recognized as white light (as defined in standards and regulations)” that not would be problematic in practice. See id. ¶ 167.9” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00328 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 26–28, 30–36, 65–68, and 70 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 29 and 69 were not shown unpatentable because the grounds did not establish sensed fog or snow.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, except that we omitted the qualifier “at least” and set the level of experience at two years. See Inst. Dec. 8. In its Response, Patent Owner stated that it “does not dispute the Board’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 3. We accordingly maintain the level of ordinary skill in the art we adopted in the Institution Decision. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “At institution, we interpreted the term “light source” as the Specification defines it: “any system that is capable of receiving an electrical signal and producing light in response to the signal.” Inst. Dec. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:7–10 (“As used herein, the term ‘light source’, LED or ‘solid state light source’ means any system that is capable of receiving an electrical signal and producing light in response to the signal.”)). Patent Owner agrees with that construction. See PO Resp. 6. However, the reason we interpreted “light source” in the institution decision was that there was a question about whether the individual “microbeams” described in the Beam reference were “light sources.” See Inst. Dec. 11. Because, as explained below, we do not reach the Beam grounds, we need not construe “light source” in this final decision. We further find that that no other express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We addressed this issue at institution, explaining that “we understand the asserted combinations” and that “[a]ssertions that both references disclose a particular claim element do not undermine or overly cloud Petitioner’s asserted combinations.” Inst. Dec. 15. That remains the case. Patent Owner’s attempt to spin some loose language in the Petition into “sixty-one grounds” (PO Resp. 7) is not persuasive, particularly after the institution decision, in which we explained how we viewed the combinations presented by Petitioner. See Inst. Dec. 11–13. The combinations are simply not as multiplicated and complicated as Patent Owner contends, and Patent Owner acknowledged at the hearing that the alleged multiplicity did not prevent it from addressing any issue. See Tr. 37:17–18 (“[Q]: Which of these did you address in your papers? [A]: We address every single one for every single claim.”). Patent Owner also argues that “[the] lack of particularity is compounded by Petitioner’s other two petitions challenging the ’503 Patent – Petitions that similarly implicate massive numbers of sub-grounds and comparably lacking particularity – resulting in Petitioner asserting at least 149 sub-grounds.” PO Resp. 19 (emphasis omitted). We again disagree with Patent Owner’s assessment of the number of “sub-grounds” at issue, and conclude, as we did at institution, that three petitions were justified given the number of asserted claims and differences in claim scope. See Inst. Dec. 15. D.” slip op. at 10

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

    “a. Motivation to Combine Patent Owner first argues that “Harbers curved substrate alone has not been shown to add anything useful to the combination.” Patent Owner 56. This argument is unpersuasive because the combination does not require a curved substrate and Patent Owner does not address the motivation for the combination identified by Petitioner, which is that Harbers’ illumination schemes would have provided “improved visibility for different functions, thereby increasing safety.” See Pet. 82–84 (citing Ex. 1011, 5:14–26, 6:1–7, 6:27–7:19, 8:10–18, Figs. 1B–2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 450). b. Segmentation and Color Shifting Patent Owner next argues that “without segmentation the motivation to use Harbers hardware alone is lacking” and that “[f]urther, the use of Harbers’ colored array creates a color-shifting problem.” PO Resp. 57. With regard to “segmentation,” Patent Owner cities Section VII.A.2.b of the Response, which argues that “[w]hile the system would have included differently colored LEDs, there still would not be a single component of the combination that would have any idea how to segment the beams as Harbers suggests.” PO Resp. 34. We disagree. The combination contemplates use of Harbers’ illumination scheme, and Harbers explains, in connection with Figure 2, for example, how the light sources are controlled to produce the desired illumination pattern. See Ex. 1011, 7:20–9:6.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01296 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 56–64, 66, 68–72, 74, and 76–87 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 65, 67, 73, and 75 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish the required non-contiguous LED cluster.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “F. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner submits that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Petitioner adds that such artisans “may work as part of a team, for example, with computer engineers to integrate/program controllers and various control inputs to affect control of a given light source.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that proposed level of skill (PO Resp. 9), and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary because Patent Owner’s arguments do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” PO Resp. 10. As to the “electronic circuitry apparatus,” Patent Owner does not dispute that the claim language reads on the asserted prior art under any construction. Thus, we need not address the construction of that 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)). Some of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments depend on claim scope, and we address those implicit claim-construction arguments below.” slip op. at 7

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

    “claim construction: that a controller must associate a target’s identity with a prior target. But the claim language neither imposes nor supports any such requirement. Claim 72 is illustrative, in that it expressly states that the disputed language regarding “illumination provided to the target” is achieved “by repeating the determination of target location, selection of the 10 We agree with Petitioner that the Petition’s reference to “Beam’s system” is a clear typographical error and that the Petition’s substance and citations refer to Karlsson, not Beam. See Pet. Reply 20. cluster and variance to illumination provided to the target, relative to the laterally adjacent areas, based on the subsequent data.” Ex. 1035, 12:8–11. That supports Petitioner’s view that a system can “maintain a variance of the illumination provided to the target” by iteratively performing the “determine,” “select,” and “vary” steps. Claim 80 does not expressly state that steps are repeated, but instead requires the processor be able to identify “a plurality of positions associated with the target” and “change, responsive to the positions associated with the target, first light associated with” LEDs aimed towards the target as the target moves. Id. at 13:30–40. That language, like claim 72’s, does not impose an additional requirement of correlating a detected target to prior detected targets. Rather, it requires that a given target results in multiple identified positions that produce light changes. Based on our understanding of the claim language, Patent Owner’s assertion that, in Karlsson, “[e]ach subsequent detection of light is performed anew and has no relationship to a prior detection and may or may not correspond to the same target” (PO Resp. 52) does not preclude the claim from reading on Karlsson. As Petitioner has identified, the claim language reads on Karlsson’s system when a particular vehicle results in multiple, subsequent detections at multiple positions. Pet. 74. Although Patent Owner poses an alternative situation in which Karlsson’s system might detect other objects rather than the particular vehicle first detected (see PO Resp. 50–51), that does not undermine Petitioner’s showing because the claims do not require that a system perform only as claimed. That is, even if Karlsson’s system detects and accommodates additional targets, if a single target results in multiple light configurations, the claim language is satisfied. And Patent Owner concedes that Karlsson’s system produces “a darkened area that changes position over time due to movement of the vehicle providing light relative to various light sources.” Id. at 52. That admission is consistent with Karlsson’s disclosure that its system adapts to sensed objects by “intermittently, repeatedly controlling” its light beam. Ex. 1010, 2:30–3:6. We find that when Karlsson’s system controls light to prevent glare to an oncoming vehicle, that would result in the processor identifying a plurality of positions associated with the vehicle and varying light associated with LEDs aimed toward the vehicle. Thus, the record supports Petitioner’s position that claims 72’s and 80’s disputed language reads on Karlsson. 5. “select a second, different cluster . . . directed towards the other vehicle”” slip op. at 16

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

    “As to a change of perspective, the record does not support that Nakamura’s processing relies on a single, unchangeable perspective. Rather, Nakamura discloses identifying relevant image regions through reference markers such as “white lines of the lane” and adjustments such as “correction amount α” to accommodate the reference markers. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 36–46; see Pet. 56 (“Nakamura explains how to implement the coordinate mapping of the pixels received by a camera.”). Thus, Nakamura’s approach is already suitable to a changed perspective and Petitioner did not have to explain further details of the required adaption. See also Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 110 (“Wherever the camera is located on the vehicle, a simple calibration for camera location versus driver’s viewpoint would be conducted to carry on the image processing.”), 156 (noting that the same reasoning applies to the Karlsson–Nakamura combination as the Beam–Satonaka combination). Additionally, Patent Owner has not persuasively supported its assertion that the changed perspective—locating sensors at the headlamps rather than centered at the top of the windshield—would impair the system’s ability to detect other vehicles. See PO Resp. 59–61. Patent Owner’s expert could not testify as to the camera locations used to generate the images that form the basis for Patent Owner’s argument, as he was not present at the test that generated those images. Ex. 1053, 104:22–105:14, 106:16–107:6, 109:17– 110:4. While there may be some tradeoffs involved in using a different camera location than Nakamura discusses, those tradeoffs would be balanced by the benefits that Karlsson discloses from locating a camera with each headlamp. Nakamura’s teachings relate to identifying regions in the illuminated field that should be dimmed. Ex. 1013 ¶ 45. Such a determination aligns with Karlsson’s own similar determination, and would be implemented as a lighting change by Karlsson’s system. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 9:18–26. Having considered the full record, we find that skilled artisans would have had reason to modify Karlsson’s system with Nakamura’s teachings regarding capturing and using image coordinates as summarized above.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00318 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 56–64, 66, 68–72, 74, and 76–87 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 65, 67, 73, and 75 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish the required non-contiguous LED clusters.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “F. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner submits that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Petitioner adds that such artisans “may work as part of a team, for example, with computer engineers to integrate/program controllers and various control inputs to affect control of a given light source.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that proposed level of skill (PO Resp. 9), and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary because Patent Owner’s arguments do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” PO Resp. 10. As to the “electronic circuitry apparatus,” Patent Owner does not dispute that the claim language reads on the asserted prior art under any construction. Thus, we need not address the construction of that 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)). Some of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments depend on claim scope, and we address those implicit claim-construction arguments below.” slip op. at 7

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

    “claim construction: that a controller must associate a target’s identity with a prior target. But the claim language neither imposes nor supports any such requirement. Claim 72 is illustrative, in that it expressly states that the disputed language regarding “illumination provided to the target” is achieved “by repeating the determination of target location, selection of the 10 We agree with Petitioner that the Petition’s reference to “Beam’s system” is a clear typographical error and that the Petition’s substance and citations refer to Karlsson, not Beam. See Pet. Reply 20. cluster and variance to illumination provided to the target, relative to the laterally adjacent areas, based on the subsequent data.” Ex. 1035, 12:8–11. That supports Petitioner’s view that a system can “maintain a variance of the illumination provided to the target” by iteratively performing the “determine,” “select,” and “vary” steps. Claim 80 does not expressly state that steps are repeated, but instead requires the processor be able to identify “a plurality of positions associated with the target” and “change, responsive to the positions associated with the target, first light associated with” LEDs aimed towards the target as the target moves. Id. at 13:30–40. That language, like claim 72’s, does not impose an additional requirement of correlating a detected target to prior detected targets. Rather, it requires that a given target results in multiple identified positions that produce light changes. Based on our understanding of the claim language, Patent Owner’s assertion that, in Karlsson, “[e]ach subsequent detection of light is performed anew and has no relationship to a prior detection and may or may not correspond to the same target” (PO Resp. 52) does not preclude the claim from reading on Karlsson. As Petitioner has identified, the claim language reads on Karlsson’s system when a particular vehicle results in multiple, subsequent detections at multiple positions. Pet. 74. Although Patent Owner poses an alternative situation in which Karlsson’s system might detect other objects rather than the particular vehicle first detected (see PO Resp. 50–51), that does not undermine Petitioner’s showing because the claims do not require that a system perform only as claimed. That is, even if Karlsson’s system detects and accommodates additional targets, if a single target results in multiple light configurations, the claim language is satisfied. And Patent Owner concedes that Karlsson’s system produces “a” slip op. at 16

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

    “As to a change of perspective, the record does not support that Nakamura’s processing relies on a single, unchangeable perspective. Rather, Nakamura discloses identifying relevant image regions through reference markers such as “white lines of the lane” and adjustments such as “correction amount α” to accommodate the reference markers. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 36–46; see Pet. 56 (“Nakamura explains how to implement the coordinate mapping of the pixels received by a camera.”). Thus, Nakamura’s approach is already suitable to a changed perspective and Petitioner did not have to explain further details of the required adaption. See also Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 110 (“Wherever the camera is located on the vehicle, a simple calibration for camera location versus driver’s viewpoint would be conducted to carry on the image processing.”), 156 (noting that the same reasoning applies to the Karlsson–Nakamura combination as the Beam–Satonaka combination). Additionally, Patent Owner has not persuasively supported its assertion that the changed perspective—locating sensors at the headlamps rather than centered at the top of the windshield—would impair the system’s ability to detect other vehicles. See PO Resp. 59–61. Patent Owner’s expert could not testify as to the camera locations used to generate the images that form the basis for Patent Owner’s argument, as he was not present at the test that generated those images. Ex. 1053, 104:22–105:14, 106:16–107:6, 109:17– 110:4. While there may be some tradeoffs involved in using a different camera location than Nakamura discusses, those tradeoffs would be balanced by the benefits that Karlsson discloses from locating a camera with each headlamp. Nakamura’s teachings relate to identifying regions in the illuminated field that should be dimmed. Ex. 1013 ¶ 45. Such a determination aligns with Karlsson’s own similar determination, and would be implemented as a lighting change by Karlsson’s system. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 9:18–26. Having considered the full record, we find that skilled artisans would have had reason to modify Karlsson’s system with Nakamura’s teachings regarding capturing and using image coordinates as summarized above.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01231 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 20–25 and 59–64 are unpatentable as obvious over Karlsson and Harbers, alone or with Gotou; the Beam and Thominet grounds were not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, except that we omitted the qualifier “at least” and set the level of experience at two years. See Ins. Dec. 7. In its Response, Patent Owner stated that it “does not dispute the Board’s reframing of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill” and asserts that “the modification should have no effect on the analysis.” See PO Resp. 14. We accordingly maintain the level of ordinary skill in the art we adopted in the institution decision. B.” slip op. at 9

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

    “At institution, we interpreted the term “light source” as the Specification defines it: “any system that is capable of receiving an electrical signal and producing light in response to the signal.” Ex. 1001, 17:7–10 (“As used herein, the term ‘light source’, LED or ‘solid state light source’ means any system that is capable of receiving an electrical signal and producing light in response to the signal.”). Patent Owner agrees with that construction. See PO Resp. 14. However, the reason we interpreted “light source” in the institution decision was that there was a question about whether the individual “microbeams” described in the Beam reference were “light sources.” See Inst. Dec. 11. Because, as explained below, we do not reach the Beam grounds, we need not construe “light source” in this final decision. We further find that that no other express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We addressed this issue at institution, explaining that “we understand the asserted combinations” and that “[a]ssertions that both references disclose a particular claim element do not undermine or overly cloud Petitioner’s asserted combinations.” Inst. Dec. 22. That remains the case. Patent Owner’s attempt to spin some loose language in the Petition into “41 Sub-Grounds within the nominal framework of six Grounds” (PO Resp. 15) is not persuasive, particularly after the institution decision, in which we explained how we viewed the combinations presented by Petitioner, for example finding that the primary references did not disclose differently angled light sources, and explaining that the combination contemplated the lighting schemes of the secondary references augmented by the selective dimming of the primary references. See Inst. Dec. 9–20. The combinations are simply not as multiplicated and complicated as Patent Owner contends, and Patent Owner acknowledged at the hearing that the alleged multiplicity did not prevent it from addressing any issue. See Trans. 37:17–18 (“[Q]: Which of these [alleged sub-grounds] did you address in your papers? [A]: We address every single one for every single claim.”). Patent Owner also argues that “[the] lack of particularity is compounded by Petitioner’s other two petitions challenging the ’503 Patent that suffer the same lack of particularity issues––meaning Petitioner has asserted at least 149 grounds.” PO Resp. 25 (emphasis omitted). We again disagree with Patent Owner’s assessment of the number of “sub-grounds” at issue, and conclude, as we did at institution, that three petitions were justified given the number of asserted claims and the differences in claim scope. See Inst. Dec. 22. D.” slip op. at 10

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

    “opto-electronic elements” and that they “[do] not have to be provided on a flat substrate” and “may alternatively be provided on a curved substrate.” Ex. 1011, 7:20–29. In either case, however, we find that the light sources must be directed at different angles to produce the pattern shown in Figure 1B. In other words, we do not read Harbers’ explanation that the substrate may be flat or curved to mean that the light sources in the non-curved substrate embodiment would all be pointed in the same direction because that is simply not consistent with Figure 1B. Instead, we understand Harbers to be describing how the differently directed light beams may be achieved either by light sources mounted on a flat substrate at different angles relative to the substrate, or by light sources mounted on a substrate that is curved. The Petition asserted that “[h]aving multiple directional beam segments with different angles/aimings as in Harbers, implemented with Karlsson’s control means 14/spotlight beams 34 (including light modulator means 3), would have provided Karlsson’s system with different spatial distributions for different driving situations beyond reducing glare for drivers, thereby improving safety.” Pet. 84 (emphasis added, citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 350). Petitioner thus relied on Harbers’ “beam segments” with “different angles/aimings” that produce the pattern shown in Figure 1B. We agree that the advantages Harbers attributes to its spatial distribution scheme would have provided a sufficient motivation to use it in the combination, and that it would include the differently angled light sources present in both the flat and curved substrate embodiments of Harbers. Because all embodiments of Harbers’ illumination method require that the light sources be arranged at different angles, we need not conclude that it would have been obvious to use Harbers’ curved substrate in place of Karlsson’s flat substrate. However, were inclusion of Harbers’ curved substrate necessary for a finding of obviousness, we conclude that Harbers’ explanation of how the non-curved and curved embodiments are simply alternative means of producing differently angled beams would be sufficient to show that use of the curved substrate in place of a flat substrate would have been a simple substitution of a known element (a curved substrate) for another (a flat substrate), yielding the predictable results described in Harbers (differently angled light sources capable of producing the designed light pattern), and that this would be, therefore, an obvious modification. See Pet. 86 (asserting that use of the curved substrate would have been a simple and predictable substitution). We find that the skilled artisan would have known to use either a flat or curved substrate to achieve Harbers’ multi-directional lighting scheme as appropriate for a given application. slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503

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.