• Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 6, 2020 · IPR2019-00030 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Ogino and Beich; claims 1–4 are also unpatentable over Ogino alone, but claim 5 is not shown unpatentable on that ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We construe claim terms to the extent necessary. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 7

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

    “supported by the cited evidence. We are persuaded, instead, that “the image plane and the sensor are taught by the ’568 patent to be coincident,” and “[t]hus, there is no ambiguity in the ’568 patent about where the image plane is located or that TTL is measured to the image plane,” as Petitioner argues in its Reply. Reply 13 (Ex. 1026 ¶ 5; Ex. 1003, 33–35). Patent Owner acknowledges as much, noting that “as these terms[, i.e., the image plane and the sensor,] are used in the specification of the ’568 patent, the image plane is the surface of the sensor.” Sur-reply 2. We find that the ’568 patent discloses that the electronic sensor corresponds to or is coincident with the image plane and thus, the TTL could be measured with respect to either the sensor (electronic or film) or the image plane and reach the same result. Based upon the complete trial record, we maintain our construction of TTL from the ’1140IPR and the ’1146IPR3, which encompasses “the length of the optical axis spacing between the object-side surface of the first lens element and one of: an electronic sensor, film, and an image plane corresponding to either the 3 The panel authorized, and the parties filed, supplemental briefing to address this construction before it was adopted in both the related ’1140IPR and ’1146IPR, and that the parties responded to this construction in the hearing in this proceeding (with citations to the transcript). See, e.g., Paper 28 (PO’s demonstratives), 5; ’1140IPR, Paper 31; ’1146IPR, Paper 30; see also Trial Practice Guide Update 13–14 (July 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/trial-practice-guide-update3.pdf; Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. f’real Foods, LLC, 908 F.3d 1328, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding that the Board did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act when it adopted its own claim construction in the final decision because the parties had notice and an opportunity to be heard). electronic sensor or a film sensor.” See ’1140IPR, Paper 37, 18; ’1146IPR, Paper 37, 14.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Even assuming, arguendo, we were to credit Patent Owner’s expert testimony as to the disjointed nature of optical lens assembly design experience and manufacturing experience, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention having only design experience would be so completely unaware of manufacturing considerations so as to preclude taking into account the very general guidance of Beich. See Reply 24–25. Beich teaches that a lens designer should have a basic understanding of the manufacturing process, which would include the limits for fabricating lens elements in an optical lens assembly. Ex. 1020, 7. We are persuaded that the information conveyed in Beich would have been understood, known, and applied by the ordinarily skilled lens designer (see Reply 4–6 (citing Ex. 2014, 4, 9, 11, Fig. 9.2)), irrespective of whether such person had manufacturing experience. Stated differently, although an ordinarily skilled designer of an optical lens assembly may not have had any real-world manufacturing experience, we are persuaded that such person would still have taken into account manufacturing concerns. Although there are differences between the definitions proposed, our conclusions rendered in this decision do not turn on selecting a particular definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art, for the reasons discussed above. We determine, on this record, that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Patent Owner is consistent with the ’568 patent and the asserted prior art. We agree with Patent Owner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill except for Patent Owner’s arguments about manufacturing discussed above. As such, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “As noted by Petitioner, The Handbook of Optics discloses that “[i]n the case of both negative and positive lens elements, it is good policy to avoid element forms wherein the center-to-edge thickness ratio exceeds three for positive elements.” Ex. 1019 § 34.15. Thus, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s fourth reason that the cited disclosure provides evidence that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have selected a particular diameter for the first lens element disclosed in Ogino in conformance with manufacturing considerations known to the ordinarily skilled artisan. We are further persuaded that, from the selection of that particular diameter, a Z1 value for the object-side surface and a Z2 value for image-side surface at the minimum usable edge of the first lens element can be obtained and, in turn, circumferential edge thickness L1e can be obtained. Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1003, 42; Ex. 1005, 15:1–3). We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s supporting reasoning that “a POSITA would understand the manufacturing benefits of maintaining the lowest possible center-to-edge thickness ratio since ‘the preferred shape of a molded element is one that has fairly uniform thickness.’” Id. at 42 (quoting Ex. 1018, 92) (citing Ex. 1003, 48). Based on our review of the complete record, we find that the record supports Petitioner’s contentions concerning claim 1. Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Ogino.” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 9,857,568 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,857,568
• Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 3, 2019 · IPR2018-01140 · APJ Marc S Hoff · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 13 are unpatentable as anticipated by Ogino; claims 14 and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Ogino and Chen II.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “claims 1 and 13 of the ’032 Patent are anticipated by Ogino. Petitioner has also demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 14 and 15 of the ’032 Patent are unpatentable over the combination of Ogino and Chen II. The chart below summarizes our conclusion. References Claims Claims Claims 35. Shown Not shown Challenged U.S.C. Unpatent- Unpatentable able Ogino 1 and 13 1 and 13 § 102 Ogino, Chen 14 and 15 14 and 15 § 103 II 1 and 13-15” slip op. at 40

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “that Ogino and Chen II disclose substantially different lens systems. PO Resp. 36. As Petitioner points out, both Ogino and Chen II describe mobile phone camera systems with all lenses being aspheric; a first lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; a second lens with negative refractive power; a third lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power; a fourth lens with a meniscus shape with positive refractive power; and a fifth lens with a meniscus shape and with a negative refractive power. Pet. Reply 22; Pet. 41–44. We agree with Petitioner that such a skilled artisan, possessing an applicable college degree, approximately three years experience in designing multi-lens optical systems, “experience in analyzing, tolerancing, adjusting, and optimizing multilens systems, and experience with lens design software such as CodeV, Oslo, or Zemax,” would have the appropriate knowledge to perform routine modifications to a lens design. Pet. Reply 24; Pet. 7; PO Resp. 12. Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Moore testified that such a skilled artisan “would be able to use the computer program [i.e. CodeV or Zemax] to optimize lens designs.” Pet. Reply 24; Ex. 1025, 29:25–30:9. Dr. Moore testified that the skilled artisan would “tell the [lens design] program that you want to vary certain parameters of a lens . . . . And then the program, through a fairly complicated algorithm, then actually goes through and varies them and determines how to make a better lens. You determine as a lens designer what you’re trying to improve.” Ex. 1025, 28:13–23.” slip op. at 38

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the skilled artisan would have understood that third, fourth, and fifth lenses also contribute to vignetting in Ogino. PO Resp. 38. We credit Petitioner’s argument that Dr. Moore’s conclusion regarding vignetting in the third, fourth, and fifth lenses is unreliable because it is based on assumptions not specified in Ogino. Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. For example, Ogino does not provide lens diameters or vignetting apertures for the lens assembly of Example 6 that would vignette the light beams on the third, fourth or fifth lens elements. Pet. Reply 17; Ex. 1026 ¶ 11. Additionally, Dr. Sasián testifies that vignetting is a result of the second lens. Pet. Reply 17–18; Pet. 54; Ex. 1003, 59.” slip op. at 36

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Effective Focal Length (EFL) Petitioner asserts that while the specification of the ’032 Patent does not offer an express definition for the term “effective focal length,” “its meaning is well known in the art, as exemplified in Li (Ex. 1007), which states that “[t]he focal length of a lens assembly [is] also referred to as the effective focal length [(]EFL).” Pet. 9–10 (internal parentheses omitted); Ex. 1007, 2:59–61. Patent Owner, in response, does not dispute Petitioner’s construction of “effective focal length,” stating that the Petition does not turn on the construction of the term. PO Resp. 20. Having reviewed the evidence of record, we agree with Petitioner that Li supports construing the term “effective focal length” as “the focal length of a lens assembly.” We adopt this construction.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 9,402,032 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,402,032
• Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2019 · IPR2018-01348 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Apple’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the petition did not show a sufficient motivation to combine Parulski and Christie.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing, we review the Decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the Decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes [we] misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “and Parulski’s teachings of zoom are combinable (id.) and Petitioner has not established that they are predictable variations of each other. Disparate embodiments in one reference can only be combined if they are a “predictable variation” of each other that does not “require a leap of inventiveness.” C.f. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see e.g. Apple Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., Case IPR2017- 01704, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Mar. 27, 2018) (Paper 9) (acknowledging Boston Scientific stands for the proposition that combining two embodiments from the same reference requires an obviousness analysis); LG Display Co., LLC v. Innovative Display Techs LLC, Case IPR2014-01362, slip op. at 13 (PTAB Mar. 2, 2015) (Paper 12) (“The rationale . . . that a person of ordinary skill would ‘pick and choose’ features from various embodiments of Baur, simply because they are in the same patent, is insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this challenge”). “Even when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 4

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

    “fused image.” Reh’g Req. 13. The Petition proposed that “fused image” should be construed as “an output image including information from two images.” We determined that construing that term was unnecessary to resolve any controversy. Inst. Dec. 7. We maintain that determination. Petitioner provides a construction for “fused image” but not for “without fusion continuous Zoom video mode output images of the object or scene.” Id. at 9–10. We properly considered the entire claim limitation in assessing whether Petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge. slip op. at 12

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “The burden of persuasion remains on a petitioner in inter partes review proceedings. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner appears to now argue that, in order to understand its contentions as to the “without fusion” limitation in Parulski, we were to mine the Petition for references to “switching between Wide sensor and Tele sensor” associated with Golan. We were not required to do so. Id. (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”); c.f. Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc. v. Twin Rivers Eng’g, Inc., Case IPR2017-00362, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2017) (Paper 16)(“the portions of the Petition cited in the Rehearing Request relate only to overviews of the references”)” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,185,291
• Bungie, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jun 29, 2018 · IPR2017-01600 · APJ Marc S Hoff · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Bungie’s rehearing request and maintained denial of institution because Francis and Gilbert did not show a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 11–13.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “A. Principles of Law When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “B. Discussion In our Decision, we concluded that the information presented did not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 11–13 are rendered obvious by Francis1 and Gilbert.2 Dec. 13. Specifically, we determined that the combination of Francis and Gilbert, taken together, did not disclose “identifying a pair of participants of the network that are connected wherein [1] a seeking participant contacts a fully connected portal computer, [2] which in turn sends an edge connection request to [3] a number of randomly selected neighboring participants to which the seeking participant is to connect.” Dec. 9–12.” slip op. at 3

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

    “overlooked any points made in the Petition. In our Decision, we explicitly referred to pages 53–55 of the Petition in discussing Francis’s teaching of “rendezvous hosts,” and Petitioner’s argument that modifying Francis’s rendezvous host with the features of Gilbert’s portal computer would provide some messaging efficiencies. Dec. 11. We concluded that Petitioner “fails to explain sufficiently why it would have been obvious to combine Francis and Gilbert to have a seeking participant contact a fully connected portal computer as claimed.” Id. at 11–12.” slip op. at 6

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,910,069
• Bungie, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2018 · IPR2017-01600 · APJ Marc S Hoff · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 11–13 obvious over Francis and Gilbert.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently explained how or why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined Francis and Gilbert to achieve this claim element. Petitioner explains that Francis teaches rendezvous hosts that allow hosts joining a group to find other hosts already in the tree-mesh, and that Francis randomly selects “neighbors” (simply other network members) for every node. See Pet. 53– 55. Petitioner further argues that Gilbert, like Francis, teaches the concept of multifunctional nodes that can execute the steps of adding a new node to the network. According to Petitioner, modifying Francis’s rendezvous host with the features of Gilbert’s portal computer would provide some messaging efficiencies. Pet. 55. In our view, however, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why it would have been obvious to combine Francis and Gilbert to have a seeking participant contact a fully connected portal computer as claimed. Still further, the disputed phrase requires that the edge connection request be sent to a “number of randomly selected” neighboring participants to which the seeking participant is to connect. Petitioner asserts that Francis provides for random selection of neighbors for every node. Pet. 55; Ex. 1005, 14. Merely choosing neighboring participants in a random manner to connect to, as Francis does here, is not the same as sending a request to a number of randomly selected neighboring participants. Petitioner has not explained how Francis and Gilbert would be combined to teach a portal computer “send[ing] an edge connection request to a number of randomly selected neighboring participants.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently explained how or why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined Francis and Gilbert to achieve this claim element. Petitioner explains that Francis teaches rendezvous hosts that allow hosts joining a group to find other hosts already in the tree-mesh, and that Francis randomly selects “neighbors” (simply other network members) for every node. See Pet. 53– 55. Petitioner further argues that Gilbert, like Francis, teaches the concept of multifunctional nodes that can execute the steps of adding a new node to the network. According to Petitioner, modifying Francis’s rendezvous host with the features of Gilbert’s portal computer would provide some messaging efficiencies. Pet. 55. In our view, however, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why it would have been obvious to combine Francis and Gilbert to have a seeking participant contact a fully connected portal computer as claimed.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Still further, the disputed phrase requires that the edge connection request be sent to a “number of randomly selected” neighboring participants to which the seeking participant is to connect. Petitioner asserts that Francis provides for random selection of neighbors for every node. Pet. 55; Ex. 1005, 14. Merely choosing neighboring participants in a random manner to connect to, as Francis does here, is not the same as sending a request to a number of randomly selected neighboring participants. Petitioner has not explained how Francis and Gilbert would be combined to teach a portal computer “send[ing] an edge connection request to a number of randomly selected neighboring participants.” For all of the above reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to independent claim 1, or to dependent claims 2–5, 7, 8, and 11–13.” slip op. at 12

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,910,069
• Bungie, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2018 · IPR2017-01601 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 19–24 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Gilbert and Francis render them obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Gilbert in view of Francis teaches “requesting the located portal computer to provide an indication of neighbor participants to which the participant can be connected,” as required by claim 19. See Prelim. Resp. 41–44. First, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, the various “portal computer” embodiments in Gilbert relied on by Petitioner do not describe a joining node requesting the portal computer to provide an indication of two adjacent nodes (i.e., the claimed “neighbor participants”) to which the joining node can connect. In the first example cited by Petitioner, see Pet. 47, a new node contacts a node it knows to be already on the network, which Petitioner alleges is the claimed “portal computer.” Ex. 1021, 6:33–34. That node then provides information regarding an adjacent node. Id. at 6:40–42. Thus, as Patent Owner correctly points out, the alleged portal computer identifies only a single adjacent node. See Prelim. Resp. 41. Although Gilbert describes a joining node contacting two adjacent nodes in the network and then connecting to those two nodes, the “two adjacent nodes” are the alleged portal computer and one of its adjacent nodes, not two nodes adjacent to the portal computer, as Petitioner suggests. See Ex. 1021, 6:32–49, Fig. 7. Thus, the node seeking to join the network does not request the portal computer to provide an indication of neighbor participants to which it can be connected, as required by claim 19, but instead only requests an indication of one neighbor participant.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Gilbert in view of Francis teaches “requesting the located portal computer to provide an indication of neighbor participants to which the participant can be connected,” as required by claim 19. See Prelim. Resp. 41–44. First, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, the various “portal computer” embodiments in Gilbert relied on by Petitioner do not describe a joining node requesting the portal computer to provide an indication of two adjacent nodes (i.e., the claimed “neighbor participants”) to which the joining node can connect. In the first example cited by Petitioner, see Pet. 47, a new node contacts a node it knows to be already on the network, which Petitioner alleges is the claimed “portal computer.” Ex. 1021, 6:33–34. That node then provides information regarding an adjacent node. Id. at 6:40–42. Thus, as Patent Owner correctly points out, the alleged portal computer identifies only a single adjacent node. See Prelim. Resp. 41. Although Gilbert describes a joining node contacting two adjacent nodes in the network and then connecting to those two nodes, the “two adjacent nodes” are the alleged portal computer and one of its adjacent nodes, not two nodes adjacent to the portal computer, as Petitioner suggests. See Ex. 1021, 6:32–49, Fig. 7. Thus, the node seeking to join the network does not request the portal computer to provide an indication of neighbor participants to which it can be connected, as required by claim 19, but instead only requests an indication of one neighbor participant.” slip op. at 10

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,829,634
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01801 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30, 31, 33, and 40–46 were not shown unpatentable because Rabinovich required prior client access before replication, and Carter did not cure that limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Ratner, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 21–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 20. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. at 21. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

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

    “whether to replicate data object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating/migrating object xs only if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, and the ratio can be greater than m only if cnt(s,xs) is greater than zero. PO Resp. 19; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication or migration step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate or migrate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independent of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer.” slip op. at 18

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

    “30, for use with a computer game (claim 45) and with an interactive computer game accessed by at least two users (claim 46). Ex. 1001, 30:47– 54. In connection with its obviousness contentions, Petitioner makes no separate arguments why Rabinovich teaches or suggests shifting redundantly stored data based upon data transmission parameters between the servers independent of an access of the client. Pet. 45–47; Reply 17–18. Because claims 45 and 46 depend from claim 30, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rabinovich teaches or suggests the limitations in these two dependent claims for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 30.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS RE40,521 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rabinovich; Petitioner did not prove claims 1–15 obvious over Rabinovich.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 19–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 21. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

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

    “object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating object xs if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, i.e., a non-zero value. PO Resp. 34; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Rabinovich object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independently of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Rabinovich” slip op. at 18

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

    “pieces” Claim 1 recites “each file including a plurality of individual pieces, the pieces containing parts of the files.” Ex. 1002, 25:67–26:1. The other independent claims recite limitations commensurate in scope. Neither party proposes explicitly a construction of the term “piece.” Petitioner argues that “files are inherently composed of pieces in the form of bits that make up bytes, the bytes themselves being pieces of the file.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner argues that construing “piece” to cover “bits and bytes” of a file “would read out the ‘pieces’ limitation from the claim entirely” (PO Resp. at 29–30) and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the ‘pieces’ limitation of the claim to include bits and bytes” (id. at 30). The claims themselves define “piece” by requiring that a “file” have a “plurality of individual pieces,” but do not establish a lower bound—i.e., a minimum number of bits or bytes—to qualify as a “piece.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the ’680 patent for its contention that “piece” or “pieces” excludes a byte or bytes of a file, relying instead solely on the testimony of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39). We are not persuaded by Dr. Jacobs’s conclusory testimony. Because “piece” and “pieces” are limited by the claims only to being a subset of a file and because a byte or collection of bytes of a file is a subset of that file, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “piece” and “pieces” in light of the Specification of the ’680 patent encompasses a byte or bytes. slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,904,680 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,904,680
• Great West Casualty Company / Bitco General Insurance Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2017 · IPR2015-01707 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–13 and 15–20 are unpatentable: claims 11, 12, and 16–20 as obvious over Payne, and claims 13 and 15 as obvious over Payne and Ackley.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “guidance in resolving this disagreement. To that end, the relevant portion of independent claim 11 recites “at least one server operative to store one or more of: a) content, b) links to content.” As an initial matter, controlling precedent from our reviewing court instructs us that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings.”); CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of . . . evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). Accordingly, on a high level, each of the following express claim terms are presumed to have different meanings: “content”; and, “links to content.”” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “We disagree with Patent Owner because Patent Owner’s assertions are misplaced. Most prominently, were O’Neil the only factual support for Patent Owner’s position, it may be persuasive. Petitioner’s proposed modification, however, relies not only on O’Neil, but also on Payne and the Declaration of Dr. Greenspun. Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 240, 241; Ex. 1006, 6:9–42, 8:38–53, 9:64–10:1, 5:16–25, and Fig. 5); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 272. In short, we are persuaded that the following findings in Payne asserted by Petitioner are accurate, and that it supports adequately Petitioner’s proposed modification. The system of Payne already includes functionality requiring a user to log on to an account, Ex. 1006 at 6:9–42, 8:38–53, so it would have been trivial to place the log in functionality directly on the digital advertising documents, which are web pages, see id. at 9:64–10:1, 5:16–25, Fig. 5. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 240. When a patent simply arranges old elements, each performing the same function it had been known to perform and together yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Pet. 48; see also Reply 11–16. As counter-evidence, Patent Owner cites to paragraphs 46–48 of the Declaration of Dr. Papakonstantinou. Those paragraphs, however, suffer from the same logical flaw identified above.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Insofar as Patent Owner is asserting that Payne and Ackley are non- analogous art, we disagree. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To that end, Payne discloses that it relates to the field of “user-interactive network sales systems for implementing an open marketplace for goods or services over computer networks such as the Internet.” Ex. 1006, 1:14–17. Ackley discloses that it relates to the field “computer-based systems and methods that enable sales transactions between third parties through a communications network, such as internet auctions and classified systems.” Ex. 1008, 1:21–25. We see little daylight between these two fields, especially given that Ackley’s use of the word “such as” with “internet auctions” indicates that such “internet auctions” are a non-limiting example, and, thus, do not materially limit Ackley’s field of endeavor.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,516,177
• Great West Casualty Company / Bitco General Insurance Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2017 · IPR2015-01706 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11, 12, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious over MyLibrary.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In summary, we construe “content” as “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” and excluding “links to content,” but not excluding “content” associated with the “links to content.”5” slip op. at 16

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

    “written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (Affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the Specification. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning ‘is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.’”). For the purposes of this decision, and on this record, we determine that most claim terms do not need express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.).” slip op. at 5

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

    “7. Conclusion We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 11, 12, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious in view of MyLibrary. In addition to findings we make above in connection with our analysis of claims 11, 12, and 16–20 as obvious in view MyLibrary, we also adopt as our findings Petitioner’s positions as to how MyLibrary discloses each of the limitations of claims 11, 12, and 16–20. We further adopt as our own Petitioner’s rationales for modifying MyLibrary, as referenced above.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,516,177

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.