• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 7, 2023 · IPR2022-00100 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8–10 and 15–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Piepgras, Michael, and Butler, with Schultz or Naskali added for claims 16 and 17.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner contends that there is “no meaningful dispute over [the definition of] a POSITA.” Reply 1. We agree. However, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill because we are persuaded that it is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’583 patent. In particular, Patent Owner’s definition requires experience with LED devices, whereas Petitioner’s definition makes LED experience optional (“experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design”). We note that the outcome of this decision would not have changed had we adopted Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “The parties propose no constructions. Pet. 7; PO Resp 8–9; Reply 1. At institution, we discussed the meaning of the term “array.” Dec. 16 n.12. Patent Owner traverses this construction and submits that “no special construction for ‘LED array’ is needed,” as it does not dispute any limitation reciting an “LED circuit array.” See PO Resp. 9. We agree. Based on our review of the record, no terms need to be construed. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “fails to identify any deficiencies or drawbacks of Piepgras’s two-button remote control because the law does not require Petitioner to identify problems with a reference in order to establish obviousness. See PO Resp. 28–30; In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”). What the Petition must demonstrate is that there was some reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to combine the elements of the prior art in the manner proposed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Petition provides multiple, persuasive reasons (discussed above) as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use a touch screen, as disclosed in Butler, to permit user control of a remote control, as disclosed in Piepgras.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues, and we agree, that the Piepgras-Michael-Butler combination discloses that the portable telecommunications device can detect a human touch. Pet. 43. Further, Dr. Baker testifies, and we agree, that a POSITA would have understood that the modified device “would use an LED touch display and thus when touched, the LED(s) of the display would change (e.g., turning on and/or changing interface content).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 141. We credit this testimony by Dr. Baker because it is well-supported by evidence. See, e.g., Exs. 1009 (Hack), 1022 (Gillespie); Pet. 43 (citing same).13 Patent Owner does not offer any contrary evidence that would undermine Dr. Baker’s persuasive testimony that a POSITA would have understood that the modified device would use an LED touch display and that when touched, the LED(s) of the display would change (and thus provide light). See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 105–16 (attacking the sufficiency of Petitioner’s evidence but not disputing Dr. Baker’s core assertion regarding the understanding of a POSITA). It is somewhat ironic that Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Baker’s testimony is “conclusory and not tied to supporting evidence.” Sur-reply 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 141). In reality, Petitioner supplies ample supporting evidence (e.g., Hack and Gillespie), but Patent Owner denies that we can consider it. See, e.g., Pet. 43 (citing, e.g., Exs. 1009, 1022); PO Resp. 44. Petitioner’s reliance on evidence to show the understanding of a skilled artisan is appropriate because “the obviousness ‘analysis requires an assessment of the . . . background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.’” Koninklijke Philips, 948 F.3d at 1337. Petitioner does not rely upon references such as Hack and Gillespie to supply a missing claim limitation.14 Rather, Petitioner relies on Butler’s disclosure of a touch screen for this limitation and points to Hack and Gillespie to show that prior art touch screens often included LED displays and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a touch screen would have provided 13 As we explain below, we need not rely on Swartz. 14 For this reason, Petitioner need not have included Swartz, Hack, or Gillespie in its ground listing, and Petitioner need not show a motivation to combine Swartz, Hack, or Gillespie with Piepgras, Michael, and Butler. light based upon detection of human touch. Reply 20; see also Pet. 43. Arendi is therefore inapposite because Petitioner’s detailed explanations and supporting evidence are the opposite of relying on “common sense” as a “wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support.” See 832 F.3d at 1362.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 10,750,583 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,750,583
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00052 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–5, 7, 11–13, 21, and 23 are unpatentable: claims 2–5, 7, 13, 21, and 23 as obvious over Birrell and Schultz; claims 11–12 as obvious over Piepgras and Kasegi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986).” slip op. at 6

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

    “the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party contends that any terms of the ’251 patent require express construction, with each party relying on the plain and ordinary meaning of each claim term. PO Resp. 13–14; Pet. Reply 1. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we agree that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “10A–C, the reflective coating is folded and shaped to form non-planar reflectors. Ex. 1046 ¶ 49; PO Resp. 15–16; Sur-Reply 4–5. We agree with Petitioner, however, that the reflector embodiments depicted in Figures 10A–C are just one potential way of utilizing a reflective layer in Schultz, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that use of an unfolded reflective layer is contemplated, and would be beneficial in, the planar embodiments of Schultz, such as the planar embodiment depicted in Figure 1. Pet. Reply 3–4, 7; Ex. 1046 ¶ 49 (“By using reflective surfaced materials, such as multilayered optical film, for the insulative layer 34 in the embodiments described herein, the light reflected from the attached LED dies has a higher probability of being reflected toward” a focusing element) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 15

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

    “to use a reflective coating or substrate in Birrell because “the use of a reflective substrate to provide mechanical support for an array of LEDs was well known in the art.” Pet. 14. Petitioner further contends that Schultz expressly discloses that reflective coatings are beneficial as they prevent light from an LED die being “unutilized due to absorption or scattering of the light.” Id. at 14–15 (quoting Ex. 1046 ¶ 48); Ex. 1046 ¶ 49 (Schultz explaining that “reflective surfaced materials” provide a “higher probability” that light reflected from the LEDs will reach the focusing element). Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a reflective substrate in Birrell in view of Birrell’s expressed desire for a uniform optical reflection to provide a uniform light source. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 1018, 6:6–18; Ex. 1022 ¶ 81; Ex. 1023, 16:16–45). Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a reflective substrate in Birrell because this would have entailed “the use of known components and mounting techniques to produce the predictable result of an LED circuit that benefited from known properties of reflective base structures, as suggested by Schultz and the knowledge of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,492,251 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,492,251
• Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00051 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Birrell and Schultz; the Board did not reach the Piepgras or Harbers and Schultz grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the ’251 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design, or a related field.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–24). For purposes of this proceeding, “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of [a person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 14. Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the prior art of record, and the ’251 patent, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5

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

    “the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party contends that any terms of the ’251 patent require express construction, with each party relying on the plain and ordinary meaning of each claim term. PO Resp. 13–14; Pet. Reply 1. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 6

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

    “In view of the foregoing, we determine that Birrell and Schultz, when viewed in light of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, teach or suggest mounting “at least one LED circuit” “on a reflective substrate,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’251 patent.” slip op. at 14

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

    “sought to use a reflective coating in Birrell because “the use of a reflective substrate to provide mechanical support for an array of LEDs was well known in the art.” Pet. 29. Petitioner further contends that Schultz expressly discloses that reflective coatings are beneficial as they prevent light from an LED die being “unutilized due to absorption or scattering of the light.” Id. at 30 (quoting Ex. 1046 ¶ 48); Ex. 1046 ¶ 49 (Schultz explaining that “reflective surfaced materials” provide a “higher probability” that light reflected from the LEDs will reach the focusing element). Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a reflective substrate in Birrell in view of Birrell’s expressed desire for a uniform optical reflection to provide a uniform light source. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 1018, 6:6–18; Ex. 1022 ¶ 81; Ex. 1023, 16:16–45). Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a reflective substrate in Birrell because this would have entailed “the use of known components and mounting techniques to produce the predictable result of an LED circuit that benefited from properties of reflective base structures, as suggested by Schultz and the knowledge of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. at 31.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 10,492,251 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,492,251
• Tokyo Ohka Kogyo., Ltd. v. Fujifilm Electronic Materials U.S.A., Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2023 · PGR2022-00010 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable for lack of written description support under § 112(a); the Board did not reach either obviousness ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have had a Bachelor degree in materials science, engineering, chemistry or similar technical discipline, and had at least two years of experience relating to the design and development of semiconductor manufacturing processes.” Pet. 14. Petitioner further submits that, “[a]lternatively, such a person may have had additional graduate education as a substitute for professional experience, or significant work experience as a substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner states that, “[w]ithout taking a position on the correctness of this definition, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s POSA definition.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Pet. 14). 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013. Petitioner contends, and Patent Owner does not contest, that “the earliest priority date claimed by the ’329 patent” is December 6, 2013. Pet. 13; PO Resp. 6. Because the undisputed earliest claimed priority date of the ’329 patent is after March 16, 2013, we apply the AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103. record, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding.” slip op. at 5

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

    “We disagree. It is clear from the plain language of claim 1 that the claimed “cleaning composition” is a composition for cleaning that includes four named components and has a specified pH. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. The ’329 patent specification unambiguously teaches that the cleaning composition is for removing residues from semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:23–29, 2:10–12, 2:17–33, 15:52–55. Although the ’329 patent describes a cleaning composition that comprises a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water, we see no reason to construe the term “cleaning composition” itself to require these components. Claim 1 expressly recites expressly including or precluding a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. The Federal Circuit advises that the specification “is not a suitable substitute for, nor can it be used to rewrite, the chosen claim language. ‘Specifications teach. Claims claim.’” SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875 (quoting SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)). The ’329 patent specification does teach a cleaning composition that includes a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water, but claim 1 is directed to a cleaning composition that expressly requires only a subset of those components. Patent Owner’s proposed construction would effectively rewrite the claim by adding unclaimed components, which we decline to do under the guise of claim construction. See id. (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “that Petitioner establishes that the ’329 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Pet. 15–43; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–82. More specifically, we find that the ’329 patent does not reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor was in possession of cleaning compositions that do not include a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. There is no dispute, on this record, that the ’329 patent specification explicitly teaches that a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water are mandatory components of the cleaning composition described therein. PO Resp. 15 (Patent Owner agreeing with Petitioner that “[t]he ’329 patent’s disclosure is unambiguously explicit regarding mandatory components of the cleaning compositions described therein.” (citing Pet. 17; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–57) (emphasis omitted, alteration in original)); see Ex. 1001, 3:47–48, 3:62–64, 10:24–26, 10:66–11:2, 12:3–4; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–67. Claim 1, however, does not require that the cleaning composition include a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. Therefore, establishing proper written description support for claim 1 requires more than showing that the inventor was in possession of a cleaning composition that includes a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water; the ’329 patent must also show that the inventor was in possession of a cleaning composition that includes only a redox agent (hydroxylamine), an organic solvent (an alkylene glycol), water, and an alkanolamine. Id.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,927,329 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,927,329
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2023 · IPR2022-00101 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 11, 12, and 14 were not shown unpatentable: the asserted obviousness combinations failed to establish required LED voltage matching or a clear, workable combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We are persuaded that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’583 patent and prior art of record. We agree that Petitioner’s proposal is overbroad in that it encompasses artisans without LED circuit design experience (“and two or more years of experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design . . .” (emphasis added)). Patent Owner’s definition, in contrast, requires “two or more years of experience with LED devices and related LED circuit design.” We therefore adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill, but we note that the outcome here would not have changed had we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill.” slip op. at 7

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

    “preliminarily agreed with Patent Owner that “substrate” may mean “a surface where ‘LEDs, capacitors and/or resistors are formed or mounted.’” Pet. 7; Dec. 19 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 22). We instructed the parties to address the meaning of “substrate” more fully at trial. Dec. 19–20 n.13. Post-institution, the parties propose the following competing constructions for the term “substrate”:” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “(2) Our analysis We agree with Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s plain reading of limitation 1(c) is correct, and under this reading, the combination of Shackle and Birrell fails to disclose or suggest limitation 1(c). Limitation 1(c) states in part: “at least one LED circuit having any number of LEDs . . . needed to approximately match the forward voltage drop of a first input voltage to the LED driver.” Ex. 1001, 27:22–25 (emphasis added). We have omitted the language “connected in series or series parallel” to highlight the grammatical relationship between the noun phrase “any number of LEDs” and the verb phrase “needed to approximately match.” The plain reading of this limitation is that the at least one LED circuit has any number of LEDs needed to approximately match the forward voltage drop of the LED driver input. Petitioner’s reading, that “the at least one LED circuit,” rather than “any number of LEDs,” must approximately match the forward voltage drop of the LED driver input, is strained and not grammatically plausible. See Reply 1–3. Petitioner does not assert there is an express disclaimer or disavowal in the specification that supports its position; Petitioner instead relies on examples disclosed in the specification to support its faulty interpretation of limitation 1(c). See Reply 2–3. These arguments are unpersuasive. It is axiomatic that we must not “limit[] the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Not only that, but Petitioner’s citations to the specification better support Patent Owner’s position. In Petitioner’s view, the specification requires other non- LED components to be combined with one or more LEDs to “appropriately match the voltage.” Reply 2. The main example Petitioner relies on describes 38 LEDs having a total voltage drop of 114 V in a circuit with a bridge rectifier having a 6 V voltage drop. Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:64–17:7). Yet the 114 V voltage drop of the LEDs alone “approximately matches” the input voltage of 120 V, without the contribution of the bridge rectifier (6 V). Id. Indeed, 114 V out of 120 V is a 95% match. Thus, this example supports Patent Owner’s view that it is the voltage drop of the LEDs themselves, not the LED circuit as a whole, that must approximately match the LED driver input. See Sur-reply 6–7.” slip op. at 16

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

    “combination. The first is that the proposed combination is not at all clear. Although Petitioner need not propose a bodily incorporation of different embodiments, Petitioner must provide a “reasoned analysis” explaining what the combination is. See DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We must be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.”) (citation omitted). But the Petition never explains how or where Piepgras’s glass substrate would be combined with Piepgras’s alleged flexible substrate, the rope light of Figure 31. At most, Petitioner suggests incorporating the illumination device 500 of Figure 42 in the rope light of Figure 31. Pet. 48 (“Piepgras provides for configurations where a reflective platform (reflective substrate) mounts lighting system 500 in a manner applicable generally to the inventions of Piepgras . . ., and thus including the rope lighting application discussed above.”). As for the glass substrate, Petitioner merely states that “a POSITA would have found it predictable to configure the Shackle-Piepgras device to implement a flexible substrate mounted to the glass substrate, wherein at least one of the plurality of LED packages is mounted to the flexible substrate.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 150). This vague statement just parrots the claim language and does not explain anything about how the glass substrate would be included in the combination.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,750,583 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,750,583
• Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 24, 2023 · IPR2022-01415 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10, 13, or 14 were unpatentable over any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). An inter partes review may be instituted if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the papers, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’629 patent would have had “at least a Bachelor’s level college degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Physics, Computer Science or a related field, and at least two years of training or experience in the design of inkjet printheads.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 45). Patent Owner does not identify a level of skill in the art that one would have had at the time of the invention of the ’629 patent or identify any shortcoming in Petitioner’s formulation. See Prelim. Resp. 42–43. For purposes of this Decision on Institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt the recitals of “at least” as that language is vague and openended. Pet. 14–15. This definition is consistent with the ’629 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The parties both argue that we should construe “non-contiguous hybrid arrangement” to mean “[a]n arrangement in which the first set of logic cells are interleaved or interlaced with the second set of logic cells.” Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 43. Petitioner supports its argument by pointing to the claim construction order from the HP litigation, which provides this construction for this term. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1010, 4 (construing non-contiguous hybrid arrangement)). Patent Owner supports its argument by citing to the written description and figures of the ’629 patent. Prelim. Resp. 43–46 (citations omitted). For example, Patent Owner cites Figure 4 of the challenged patent, and its accompanying text, and argues that Figure 4 illustrates that the “logic cells [are] interleaved in a manner that minimizes the space between heater arrays by forming a single linear array.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 4). The accompanying text teaches that “the magenta logic cells 440a–n may be interleaved between the cyan logic cells 420a–n in an alternating manner to form a single, linear hybrid cyan/magenta P-logic array 302.” Ex. 1001, 5:67–6:4; Prelim. Resp. 45 (citing same). The ’629 patent adds that “[b]ecause of this interlacing of cyan P-registers 420a–n and magenta P-registers 440a–n, neither the cyan P-registers 420a–n nor the magenta P-registers 440a–n remain contiguous,” and that “[f]or example, in F[igure] 4, the cyan logic cell 420b is followed by the magenta logic cell 440a instead of the next cyan logic cell 420c.” Ex. 1001, 6:10–15; Prelim. Resp. 45 (citing same). We have reviewed the parties’ arguments, and we adopt the parties’ proposed construction for this term. In addition, we determine that no express construction is needed for any other term for us to render our Decision on Institution. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “However, we agree with Patent Owner that Hayasaki does not disclose that AND circuit array 5M’ and AND circuit array 5Y are arranged in a non-contiguous hybrid arrangement. Prelim. Resp. 51–52, 54–63. Rather, Hayasaki’s AND gates are arranged in a grid, with each magenta 6 Petitioner argues that “‘a first and a second set of logic cells’ is indefinite because it is unclear if this requires (i) a first set of logic cells and a second set of logic cells, (ii) first and second sets of logic cells, or (iii) a set of first logic cells and second logic cells.” Pet. 30 n.5. We disagree. The plain reading of this limitation corresponds to a first set of logic cells and a second set of logic cells, which is in accord with the interpretation Petitioner applies in this proceeding. Id. AND gate of AND circuit array 5M’ located directly aligned with the corresponding yellow AND gate of AND circuit array 5Y—they are not interleaved or interlaced. Ex. 1004, Fig. 9. Put differently, Hayasaki teaches that AND circuit array 5M’ and AND circuit array 5Y comprise two separate columns of logic cells that are not interleaved or interlaced. See Ex. 1004, Fig. 9, ¶ 93. Thus, Hayasaki does not teach sets of logic cells in a non-contiguous hybrid arrangement.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,559,629
• Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 22, 2023 · PGR2022-00009 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–12, and 14–19 are unpatentable based on lack of written description, anticipation by Bruning, or obviousness over Bruning and Kabel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “lighting device.” Accordingly, we determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of relevant experience in the field of design and/or development of LEDs and circuits,” as Petitioner proposes and that “the field of design and/or development” would be “in the context of lighting devices” as Patent Owner proposes, in which “[a]n increase in experience could compensate for less education.” Id.; Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 46).” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “theoretically fall under the “or greater” portion of the amended claim limitation “forward voltage of 6V or greater,” Applicant distinguished Colby on the basis that the 120V AC voltage from a wall outlet is not “the minimum voltage difference required between the anode and cathode of the LEDs in the claimed circuit to allow current to flow through the LEDs.” See Ex. 1023, 9 (emphasis added). Applicant’s argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue––“forward voltage of 6V or greater”––and specifically states that it is not disclosed because Colby does not disclose the minimum voltage and instead, discloses something else, something larger–– 120V AC voltage. Accordingly, we conclude that Applicant disclaimed any voltage that is more than “the minimum voltage difference required between the anode and cathode of the LEDs in the claimed circuit to allow current to flow through the LEDs” from the scope of “forward voltage.”” slip op. at 25

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “4. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) With respect to the written description requirement, we are persuaded” slip op. at 32

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable

    “Basis § Unpatentable Unpatentable Lack of written description, 3, 10, 17 112(a) 3, 10, 17 Lack of enablement 3, 10, 17 112(b) Indefiniteness 3, 10, 17 Lack of written description, 4, 11, 18 112(a) 4, 11, 18 Lack of enablement 4, 11, 18 112(b) indefiniteness 4, 11, 18” slip op. at 77

  Patent outcomesUS 10,932,341 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,932,341
• Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLCInstituted
  PTAB · May 22, 2023 · IPR2022-01541 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 9, 10, 20–22, and 24 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1–7, 9, 10, 20–22, and 24 of the ’951 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to all grounds asserted in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2

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

    “the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party asserts that any claim terms of the ’951 patent require construction. See Pet. 7; Prelim. Resp. 18–19. And, upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we find that no terms require construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “arrangement,” allowing for an increased density of dots to be formed on the recording paper. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 10–12, 17. One aspect of the “ink ejection parts” is the row of nozzles 22. Id. ¶¶ 17–18, 43, Fig. 1. In light of these disclosures, Mr. Curley testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the nozzles of Hamafuku are arranged in a row at “high density,” which was considered to be 600 dpi or higher in the relevant time period. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 321–323. We find this testimony sufficient to present, at a minimum, a material issue of fact as to whether Hamafuku teaches or suggests nozzles that are spaced apart with a pitch ranging from about 600 to about 2400 dpi, as recited in claim 1. declaration are not persuasive. The Petition clearly details why Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Hamafuku to teach or suggest a nozzle pitch of between about 600 and 2400 dpi. Pet. 67– 69. The Petition supports this conclusion with citation to prior art references and Mr. Curley’s declaration testimony. Id. In his declaration, Mr. Curley supports his conclusions with respect to the “high density” disclosure of Hamafuku with specific references to the same prior art disclosures that are cited in the Petition. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 318–323; Pet. 68 (both citing to disclosures in Exhibit 1008 and Exhibit 1025). We find this approach is appropriate. As noted by Patent Owner, Mr. Curley’s declaration spans over two hundred pages and contains a more extensive discussion of the prior art and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant time period. A declaration containing an in-depth discussion of the background of the relevant art, as well as a more complete analysis of the relevant prior art disclosures, is often more persuasive than a declaration that merely parrots the Petition, or vice versa, as it not only assists the panel in understanding the relevant technology, but also tends to demonstrate the declarant’s knowledge in the relevant field and his or her depth of analysis pertaining to the issues at hand. Of course, this extended analysis may not be incorporated-by-reference wholesale into a petition, but we discern no attempt to do so here, at least with respect to the nozzle pitch limitation disputed by the parties at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,152,951
• Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00291 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 15–17 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not disclose the construed network-based portal residing on a server side of a network.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “network-based portal” as recited in the challenged claims is sufficiently broad to encompass residing at either a client or server side of a network, as Petitioner contends, or is limited to residing at the server side, as Patent Owner contends. On the preliminary record, we declined to adopt Patent Owner’s exclusion of residing at a client side when extending our invitation to the parties to elaborate on their positions. Dec. 11. But we are mindful that “the Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if convinced its initial inclinations were wrong.” TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The full record developed at trial includes the Declaration of Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 46–64. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”). slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “The full record developed at trial includes the Declaration of Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 46–64. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”).” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 25. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth supports this articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–97. Patent Owner does not propose any different expression of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Rouskas testifies that he has “employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition” in his Declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 21. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. 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 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Both the preamble and the body of independent claim 1 recite “a network-based portal.” Ex. 1001, 19:63, 20:4, 20:6, 20:11, 20:15–16, 20:21–22, 20:29–30, 20:42–43, 20:46–47; see PO Resp. 19 (Patent Owner contending that, because of the repeated recitation of “network-based portal” throughout the body of independent claim 1, the “preamble therefore breath[e]s life and meaning into claim 1”). Contending that a “network-based portal” is “a web page or interface that connects multiple users to a network,” Petitioner identifies client-resident user-interface 112 of Diacakis as meeting the claim’s requirement for such a feature. Pet. 36. As explained above, after evaluating the record evidence developed during the trial, we do not adopt such a broad construction of “network-based portal.” Supra § II.D. Instead, we construe “network-based portal” as Patent Owner advocates, namely as residing on a server side of a network. Id. Because Petitioner does not show that Diacakis discloses a “network- based portal” as so construed, we conclude that Petitioner does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis. Because the deficiency in Petitioner’s showing applies to the claims that depend from claim 1 because they inherit the “network-based portal” limitations, we also conclude that Petitioner does not show that any of claims 2–5, 15, or 17 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis; that any of claims 7–9 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis and Loveland; nor that” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 10,708,727 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,708,727
• Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2023 · IPR2022-00202 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness grounds did not show a network-based portal residing on the server side of a network.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Against this backdrop, we address the parties’ arguments, ultimately concluding that Patent Owner articulates the more persuasive position that a “network-based portal” as recited in the claims is limited to residing at a server side of a network.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “The full record developed at trial includes the Declaration of Dr. Rouskas (Patent Owner’s expert), who directly opines on this issue. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 46–64. Although the record also includes a Declaration by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, that Declaration was filed with the Petition and neither responds to Dr. Rouskas’s opinions nor provides any testimonial evidence to support Petitioner’s positions beyond what was available at the preliminary stage of the proceeding.3 See generally Ex. 1003. In evaluating the fully developed record, we necessarily accord greater weight to Dr. Rouskas’s testimony than to Petitioner’s attorney argument as advanced in Petitioner’s Reply. See, e.g., Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[U]nsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence and cannot rebut . . . other admitted evidence . . . .”). Our evaluation also necessarily remains cognizant that “[i]n an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic 3 Petitioner filed a second Declaration by Dr. Almeroth after institution (such that it was not available on the preliminary record), but that Declaration is provided primarily as supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) to address objections by Patent Owner to the authenticity of various other exhibits. Ex. 1038 ¶ 2. Dr. Almeroth’s second Declaration otherwise merely incorporates Dr. Almeroth’s “technical opinions” by reference to his first Declaration, without providing any further facts or expressing any further opinions that bear on the merits, including claim construction. Id. ¶ 1. Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Against this backdrop, we address the parties’ arguments, ultimately concluding that Patent Owner articulates the more persuasive position that a “network-based portal” as recited in the claims is limited to residing at a server side of a network.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 24. According to Petitioner, “[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth supports this articulation. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–75. Patent Owner does not propose any different expression of the level of ordinary skill, and Dr. Rouskas testifies that he has “employed Dr. Almeroth’s definition” in his Declaration. Ex. 2005 ¶ 21. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. 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 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Both the preamble and the body of independent claim 1 recite “a network-based portal.” Ex. 1001, 20:3, 20:11, 20:20, 20:23, 20:29, 20:31, 20:48, 20:54; see PO Resp. 19 (Patent Owner noting repeated recitation of “network-based portal” in independent claim 1). Contending that a “network-based portal” is “a web page or interface that connects clients to a network,” Petitioner identifies client-resident user-interface 112 of Diacakis as meeting the claim’s requirement for such a feature. Pet. 34. As explained above, after evaluating the record evidence developed during the trial, we do not adopt such a broad construction of “network-based portal.” Supra § II.D. Instead, we construe “network-based portal” as Patent Owner advocates, namely as residing on a server side of a network. Id. Because Petitioner does not show that Diacakis discloses a “network- based portal” as so construed, we conclude that Petitioner does not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis. The same deficiency exists with respect to Petitioner’s analysis of independent claims 11 and 19. See Pet. 55–57 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 11 relying substantially on analysis of claim 1), 59–60 (Petitioner’s analysis of claim 19 relying substantially on analysis of claim 1). Because the deficiency in Petitioner’s showing also applies to the dependent claims, which inherit the “network-based portal” limitations, we conclude that Petitioner does not show that any of claims 1– 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Diacakis.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,142,810 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,142,810

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.