- PTAB · Apr 30, 2018 · IPR2017-01975 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show the UC1828 datasheet was publicly accessible as a printed publication.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. (Emphasis added.) See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” Inst. Dec. 8 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added)); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2). Petitioner has the burden to establish in its Petition a reasonable likelihood of success, including, among other things, making a threshold showing that the UC1828 datasheet is a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 311(b). Inst. Dec. 9 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c); Apple, Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., Case IPR2015-00369, slip op. at 4–5, 9–11 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2015) (Paper 14)). As we explained in the Institution Decision, “‘[p]ublic accessibility’ is the touchstone in determining whether a reference is a ‘printed publication.’” Inst. Dec. 10 (citing In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986)); see, e.g., L-3 Commc’n. Holdings, Inc. v. Power Survey, LLC, Case IPR2014- 00832, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2014) (Paper 9) (applied reference not shown to be publicly accessible); C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., Case IPR2014-00727, slip op. at 20–22 (PTAB Oct. 29, 2014) (Paper 15) (applied reference shown to be publicly accessible). Consequently, “[a] reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.”’ Inst. Dec. 10 (emphasis added) (citing Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008))). The status of a reference as a printed publication is a legal conclusion “based on underlying factual determinations.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348 (citing In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“As we explained in the Institution Decision, “‘[p]ublic accessibility’ is the touchstone in determining whether a reference is a ‘printed publication.’” Inst. Dec. 10 (citing In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986)); see, e.g., L-3 Commc’n. Holdings, Inc. v. Power Survey, LLC, Case IPR2014- 00832, slip op. at 11–12 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2014) (Paper 9) (applied reference not shown to be publicly accessible); C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., Case IPR2014-00727, slip op. at 20–22 (PTAB Oct. 29, 2014) (Paper 15) (applied reference shown to be publicly accessible). Consequently, “[a] reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.”’ Inst. Dec. 10 (emphasis added) (citing Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008))). The status of a reference as a printed publication is a legal conclusion “based on underlying factual determinations.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348 (citing In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner did not request the opportunity to submit additional evidence of public accessibility during the Preliminary Proceeding. Id. at 14 n.5; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.2 (“Preliminary Proceeding”). Nevertheless, Petitioner now asks that we take official notice of evidence contained in several issued patents and an abandoned patent application that were not made of record during the Preliminary Proceeding to support arguments presented for the first time in its Request for Rehearing. Reh’g Req. 4 n.1; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(c) (“Judicial notice”). We decline to take official notice of any new evidence during consideration of this Request for Rehearing. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity for the requestor to present new arguments or evidence, and it goes without saying that we could not have misapprehended or overlooked new evidence that was not of record during the Preliminary Proceeding or new arguments that were not previously presented regarding that new evidence.” slip op. at 5
§ 102 anticipation - PTAB · Apr 30, 2018 · IPR2017-01944 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Power Integrations’ rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because Mammano was not shown to be a printed publication.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“(Emphasis added.) See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” Inst. Dec. 9 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added)); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2). Petitioner had the burden to establish in its Petition a reasonable likelihood of success, including, among other things, making a threshold showing that Mammano is a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 311(b). Inst. Dec. 9–10 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c); Apple, Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., Case IPR2015-00369, slip op. at 4–5, 9–11 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2015) (Paper 14)).” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” Inst. Dec. 9 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added)); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2). Petitioner had the burden to establish in its Petition a reasonable likelihood of success, including, among other things, making a threshold showing that Mammano is a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 311(b). Inst. Dec. 9–10 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c); Apple, Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., Case IPR2015-00369, slip op. at 4–5, 9–11 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2015) (Paper 14)).” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied
“Reh’g Req. 4–5 (emphasis added). Regardless whether it “would be reasonable to conclude” that certain facts exist, Petitioner did not make these arguments in its Petition, and it was not error to fail earlier to draw these conclusions, and we decline to draw these conclusions now.” slip op. at 6
§ 102 anticipation - Praxair Technology, Inc. v. Entegris, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 29, 2018 · IPR2016-01845 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 103 over the four instituted combinations of Rendon, ATMI VAC or Trace, Gupta, and, for claims 3, 5, 8, and 10, Tempel.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that the probative weight of Dr. Sinha’s testimony is diminished based solely on Patent Owner’s arguments alleging Dr. Sinha is biased and has a substantial interest in the outcome of these proceedings. To assess the probative value of an expert opinion, we must consider the following factors: (1) the interest of the expert in the outcome of the case; (2) the presence or absence of factual evidence supporting the expert’s opinion, and (3) the strength of any opposing evidence. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294– 295 (Fed. Cir. 1985).15 Although “the opinion testimony of a party having a direct interest in the pending [proceeding] is less persuasive than opinion testimony by a disinterested party, it cannot be disregarded for that reason alone and may be relied upon when sufficiently [persuasive].” Id.” slip op. at 69
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“6. Constitutionality of Inter Partes Review Patent Owner argues that the Petition should be rejected because the proceeding violates Patent Owner’s constitutional rights under Article III and the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See PO Resp. 47. (citing U.S. CONST. amend. VII; Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 377 (1996); McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Autlman & Co., 169 U.S. 606, 609 (1898)). Patent Owner acknowledges that the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Servcs. LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, No. 16-712, 137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017) to consider the constitutionality of inter partes reviews. SeePO Resp. 47. Patent Owner seeks to preserve this issue pending the outcome in Oil States. See id. At this time, no court has found inter partes review unconstitutional, and we are bound by Federal Circuit precedent. See MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 292 (2016). The matter is before the U.S. Supreme Court, and Patent Owner’s arguments on this basis are premature.” slip op. at 70
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“February 26, 2010 (the earliest priority date for the ’134 Patent) “had at least a bachelor’s of science degree in chemistry, physics, chemical engineering, or materials science engineering with at least two years’ experience in ion implantation.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 79). Petitioner contends that a person of skill in the art “would have had knowledge of ion implantation considerations, including considerations affecting the effectiveness of ion generation and longevity of ion implantation equipment, and be familiar with gas handling related to ion implantation.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 79). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 8. Moreover, Patent Owner agrees that a person of skill in the art “would have had knowledge of ion implantation considerations, including considerations affecting the effectiveness of ion generation and longevity of ion implantation equipment, and be familiar with gas handling related to ion implantation.” Id. (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 49–51). We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
Patent outcomesUS 8,237,134 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Markman · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,237,134 - Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 21, 2018 · IPR2016-01895 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 8–11, 13–21, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Johnson, Mason/EIA-709.1/Shuey/C12.18, and anticipated by Johnson.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 2002 ¶ 76. Patent Owner asserts using its lower level of skill in the art “would diminish the motivation of a POSITA would have for combining references identified in the instituted grounds.” Id. at ¶ 82. We disagree that an understanding of how to design and build a wireless, multi-hop communications systems is a leap in knowledge that would create a motivation to combine that would not be there under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of skill. See Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 9–11. Thus, we do not discern a difference between the two proposed levels of skill that affects the analysis in this IPR. However, for clarity we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill, which is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Here, the intrinsic evidence does not support limiting the challenged claims to sending “original” messages. Thus, sending sensed data acquired from another device is within the ambit of the challenged claims. In fact, dependent claims 2, 11, 15, 17, 21 specifically recite a sensor and/or actuator which suggests that the independent claims can be broader and may not require a remote device “including” a sensor and/or actuator. Additionally, the court in the related Amazon litigation did not construe “remote devices” to require actuators. Id. at 16, 74. For the reasons above, the broadest reasonable construction of the remote device terms does not require a sensor and/or actuator. Based on the 4 Sipco, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2-08-cv-00359 (E.D. Tex.) (“the related Amazon litigation”). 8 record before us, it is unnecessary to expressly construe the remote device terms further.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Based on Petitioner’s citations to specific prior art disclosures and supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that it also would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Mason, with EIA-709.1’s teachings, to include an address that varies in size. Pet. 50. For example, Petitioner contends: A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to use the scalable destination address of EIA-709.1 in Mason’s system. The ‘492 patent uses scalable addresses in order to accommodate systems of different sizes and complexity. Ex. 1001 at 9:59-61. The scalable addresses of EIA-709.1 would also accommodate systems of different sizes and complexity in a more flexible manner. Mason expresses a desire to implement a large scale AMR system. Mason at 1:46-48, 5:25-57. Mason also recognizes the importance of uniquely identifying a large number of destination meters. Mason at 10:43-56. Using the scalable addresses of EIA-709.1 in Mason’s system would allow a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to effectively identify message destinations in networks with increasing sizes and complexity. Kinney, ¶¶116-117. Moreover, Mason explicitly discloses that the LonTalk protocol can be used with its system. Mason at 17:4-9. The LonTalk protocol ultimately was adopted as EIA-709.1. Exs. 1022, 1023, 1024. Indeed, the LonTalk protocol specification includes the same scalable addresses disclosed in EIA-709.1. Ex. 1020 at 14-16. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would thus be motivated to combine Mason and EIA-709.1, with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Kinney, ¶118.” slip op. at 44
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“configured to detect a condition and output a signal to the controller,” as recited in claim 15. In that regard, Petitioner contends each meter 12 of Mason includes a metering board for performing the metering function. Pet. 44; Ex. 1006, 5:59–63. Each meter also includes a set of analog transducers. Id.; Ex. 1006, 5:59–64. Thus, according to Petitioner a person of ordinary skill in the art “would appreciate that a sensor is a type of transducer, and that Mason’s transducers are sensors. Mason’s metering board and/or analog transducers correspond to the claimed ‘sensor.’” We agree and credit Petitioner’s declarant’s supporting testimony. Pet. 44; Ex. 1002 ¶ 101. Petitioner also asserts the metering board and/or analog transducers are operable to detect a condition related to, for example, electricity, gas, or water, and output meter information corresponding to the condition to the meter’s controller. Pet. 44; Ex. 1006, 5:32–41, 9:56–65, 15:37–47, 49–53; Ex. 1002 ¶ 101. c. Claims 17 Petitioner persuades us that Mason teaches “at least one actuator configured to implement an action corresponding to the command code,” as recited in claim 17. In that regard, Petitioner contends Mason discloses that each meter 12 includes a disconnect switch drive circuit. Pet. 45; Ex. 1006, 5:59–64. Thus, according to Petitioner a person of ordinary skill in the art 48 “would appreciate that a disconnect drive circuit implements an action, such as a disconnect function, in response to receiving a command to do so using the C12.18 protocol. This operation corresponds to the claimed actuator configured to implement an action corresponding to the command code.” Pet. 45; Ex. 1002 ¶ 101. We agree and credit Petitioner’s declarant’s supporting testimony. Ex. 1002 ¶ 101.” slip op. at 48
Patent outcomesUS 7,697,492 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,697,492 - Freebit As v. Bose CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 23, 2018 · IPR2017-01309 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Freebit’s rehearing request and left in place the denial of institution on claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–11, and 13 based on the deficient obviousness showing and Tan antedating.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. (Emphasis added.) See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of 1 IPR2017-01307 Inst. Dec. 34 (“As we noted above, although Patent Owner mentions both March 26, 200[9] (Prelim. Resp. 8), and May 26, 2009 (id. at 1, 10), as the date of actual reduction to practice, it is clear from Mr. Annunziato’s testimony and supporting evidence, that actual reduction to practice occurred by May 26, 2009. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 9, 11; see id., Ex. A, 2.”). 2 We note that Petitioner presented substantially identical arguments regarding Patent Owner’s antedating of Tan in its Request for Rehearing filed in IPR2017-01307 and IPR2017-01308. See, e.g., IPR2017-01308, Paper 11. Our reasons for denying rehearing here regarding the antedating of Tan are substantially the same as the reasons presented in IPR2017-01307 and IPR2017-01308. discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“testimony that there was a known, retention problem with in-ear earpieces as of the earliest priority date for challenged claims of the ’853 patent. See Inst. Dec. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 149). Nor did we question that Howes discusses that problem and teaches a possible solution to that problem. See id. at 11–13. The failure in Petitioner’s argument and Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony was to draw the necessary link between the known problem and Howes’s possible solution and the teachings of Sapiejewski. In order to link this problem and its possible solution to the teachings of Sapiejewski, Petitioner relies on Dr. Staab’s testimony. Id. at 14. It is this testimony that we find unsupported and conclusory.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundTeaching away not found
“testimony that there was a known, retention problem with in-ear earpieces as of the earliest priority date for challenged claims of the ’853 patent. See Inst. Dec. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 149). Nor did we question that Howes discusses that problem and teaches a possible solution to that problem. See id. at 11–13. The failure in Petitioner’s argument and Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony was to draw the necessary link between the known problem and Howes’s possible solution and the teachings of Sapiejewski. In order to link this problem and its possible solution to the teachings of Sapiejewski, Petitioner relies on Dr. Staab’s testimony. Id. at 14. It is this testimony that we find unsupported and conclusory.” slip op. at 6
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Initially, we note that Petitioner did not raise these arguments anywhere in its Petition or its authorized Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Not only did Petitioner fail to raise the issue of “Peeler diligence,” but Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing does not include a single citation to its Petition or to its Reply on this point. Thus, Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing fails to identify the place where each matter that allegedly was overlooked or misapprehended was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity for the requestor to present new arguments or evidence. It goes without saying that we could not have overlooked or misapprehended arguments that Petitioner did not make, and it is not an abuse of discretion not to consider such arguments.” slip op. at 10
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,036,853 - Freebit As v. Bose CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Jan 23, 2018 · IPR2017-01307 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Freebit’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–4, 6–9, 13, and 17 because the obviousness challenge lacked a supported reason to combine and Tan was antedated.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. (Emphasis added.) See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of 1 Inst. Dec. 34 (“As we noted above, although Patent Owner mentions both March 26, 200[9] (Prelim. Resp. 8), and May 26, 2009 (id. at 1, 10), as the date of actual reduction to practice, it is clear from Mr. Annunziato’s testimony and supporting evidence, that actual reduction to practice occurred by May 26, 2009. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 9, 11; see id., Ex. A, 2.”). 2 We note that Petitioner presented substantially identical arguments regarding Patent Owner’s antedating of Tan in its Request for Rehearing filed in IPR2017-01308 and in IPR2017-01309. See, e.g., IPR2017-01308, Paper 11. Our reasons for denying rehearing here regarding the antedating of Tan are substantially the same as the reasons presented in IPR2017-01308 and IPR2017-01309. discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“testimony that there was a known, retention problem with in-ear earpieces as of the earliest priority date for challenged claims of the ’253 patent. See Inst. Dec. 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 149). Nor did we question that Howes discusses that problem and teaches a possible solution to that problem. See id. at 37–39. The failure in Petitioner’s argument and Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony was to draw the necessary link between the known problem and Howes’s possible solution and the teachings of Sapiejewski. In order to link this problem and its possible solution to the teachings of Sapiejewski, Petitioner relies on Dr. Staab’s testimony. Id. at 41. It is this testimony that we find unsupported and conclusory.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentableDecided for patent owner
“neither Petitioner nor its declarant explains why a general need to secure an earpiece in an ear would lead to adding a positioning and retaining structure in the context of Sapiejewski’s teachings, when that function allegedly already is provided by the Sapiejewski device, besides seeking the benefits described in the ’253 patent – a reason tainted by hindsight. Inst. Dec. 45–46 (citations omitted). Consequently, we considered fully Petitioner’s arguments and Dr. Staab’s testimony, including any supporting evidence, in view of Sapiejewski’s disclosure. Based on this consideration, we agreed with Patent Owner that “Petitioner relies on a far too general reason to combine the references and engages in impermissible hindsight as to the particular combination of the teachings of Sapiejewski and Howes.” Id. at 45.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“suppression or concealment may be overcome with evidence that the reason for the delay was to perfect the invention.” 843 F.2d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see Inst. Dec. 33. Nevertheless, the delay could not be excused (1) if “the delay is caused by working on refinements and improvements which are not reflected in the final patent application,” or (2) if “the activities which caused the delay go to commercialization of the invention.” Lutzker, 843 F.2d at 1367. In its Reply, Petitioner focused on the length of the delay between the actual reduction to practice and the filing of a patent application. Reply 3–4. Petitioner, however, made only cursory and conclusory reference to Patent Owner’s activities3 between the actual reduction to practice and the filing of a patent application. See Reply 4 (“Moreover, Mr. Annunziato’s testimony (¶ 6) that his team put in hundreds (if not thousands) of hours trying out and testing different designs for ear interfaces is not credible.”). Petitioner now argues that “all the alleged work carried out by [Patent Owner] to complete the [printed circuit board] is irrelevant to the suppression/concealment issue because it was not reflected in the final patent application, and rather, was relevant simply for commercialization.” Reh’g Req. 12. We continue to disagree.” slip op. at 10
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,311,253 - Bungie, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · 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 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,910,069 - Emerson Electric Co. v. IP Co., LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 9, 2018 · IPR2016-01602 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over the stated combinations of Burchfiel, Schwartz, and Heart, with Online Encyclopedia for claims 2, 5, and 11.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties differ on the level of ordinary skill applicable to this case. Petitioner contends the person of ordinary skill “would have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and 2-3 years of experience in the development and design, or technical marketing, of radio communications and computer network systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, responds: “a person of ordinary skill in the art for the patent-in-suit would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent and experience with, or exposure to, computer networks and routing. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also have approximately two years of professional experience with computer networking, routing, and wireless networks.” Almeroth II Decl. ¶ 74. Dr. Almeroth takes issue with Petitioner’s definition “since it does not specifically list Computer Science as a possible degree.” Id. at ¶ 78. We adopt Patent Owner’s slightly more inclusive definition. As the definitions do not differ substantially, however, under either we would reach the same result. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“transmission paths from a particular client to the server. Pet. Reply 5–6. Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s dictionary definition relates to “a physical map, not a structure for organizing data in mathematics or computer science.” Id. at 6. We agree with Petitioner that this particular definition of “map” is not pertinent to the subject matter of the ’516 patent, and therefore give Patent Owner’s argument based on this definition little weight. See id. If anything, the dictionary entry cited by Patent Owner supports Petitioner’s view that the construction of “map” should not be limited to multiple paths from one client. Thus, the second definition of “map” in the dictionary entry is not limited to multiple elements: “The correspondence of one or more elements in one set to one or more elements in the same set or another set.” Ex. 2001, 827 (“map,” definition 2; emphasis added). We deem this second definition, identified as pertaining to mathematics (“Math.”), to be more pertinent to the technology of the ’516 patent than that chosen by Petitioner. Nor are we persuaded by Patent Owner’s other argument, based on the reference in the ’516 patent claims to plural “paths.” PO Resp. 11–12. As Petitioner points out, claims 1 and 13 recite “changing the transmission path [singular] from the client to the gateway so that the path to the gateway is chosen.” Pet. Reply 6. We are, therefore, not persuaded by the arguments presented that the construction of this term in our Institution Decision requires modification. We therefore construe the term “map” as containing the paths or links to a node in the network, including a single path.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction neededOther
“We agree with Petitioner that this term needs no express construction. However, we determine that it is necessary to address Patent Owner’s proposed construction, as it is central to its defense to Petitioner’s challenge. Patent Owner’s construction of this term is related to its proffered construction of “map of data packet transmission paths,” discussed supra. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he claim language itself . . . requires the server to change the selection of a transmission path including an identification of an entire path from the client to the server.” PO Resp. 13 (emphasis added). We disagree with this interpretation. The claim uses the word “chosen,” not “select.” We agree with Petitioner that this is a significant difference, in that “chosen” does not necessarily imply a selection among alternative paths. Pet. Reply 7. Further support for this conclusion is found in our discussion of “map of data packet transmission paths,” supra. There, we conclude that “map” should not be limited to multiple paths from a client. See supra. In the same way, the claim language should not be construed as requiring choosing from a selection of alternative paths. Patent Owner points to a decision in which another panel of the Board, in IPR2015-01901, construed the word “select” in a “related patent.” PO Resp. 13–14. We are not persuaded by that decision that we are misconstruing the claims at issue here, which do not use the word “select.” In the context of the ’516 patent claims, we do not regard “chosen” as having the same meaning as “select.”” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has demonstrated that Burchfiel’s connectivity matrix meets this claim limitation. Pet. 35–35; 54. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments in rebuttal. First, addressing the “plurality of descriptions” argument, we have construed the term “map” as not limited to storing multiple paths from one client to the server. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument calling for a “plurality of descriptions” of a path from a client to the server is contrary to our construction. Moreover, we are not persuaded that a map must contain the “entire path.” We have construed “map” as containing the paths or links to a node in the network, including a single path. See infra. Thus, the “entire path” argument fails for this reason alone. We find, however, that even under Patent Owner’s construction of map as requiring a “description of the entire path,” Burchfiel would meet this limitation. Ex. 1005, 246. Burchfiel teaches a map containing both the path from the station to the server and from the server to the station. According to Burchfiel, a connection table provides a map of path information: Once a station has labelled all PRU’s and established connections to them, the information for maintaining these connections is entered into the station’s connection table. This contains the status information described above for handling the connection protocol. Ex. 1005, 247 (emphasis added). As Petitioner points out, Burchfiel specifically describes these connections as “bidirectional.” Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1005, 246 (“Since most expected uses of the PRN will require bidirectional communication, the PRN connection is bi-directional.”)). Petitioner provides persuasive expert testimony to the effect that “it would have been obvious to recompute the route in both directions, to the extent not disclosed by Burchfiel, based on Burchfiel’s disclosure that, e.g., the ‘PRN connection is [a] bidirectional’ ‘data transmission path.” Geier II Decl. ¶ 69. We find that at the very least, therefore, Burchfiel’s reference to “bi-directional” connections suggests such a computation. “Even if a reference’s teachings are insufficient to find anticipation, that same reference’s teachings may be used to find obviousness.” CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We find based on the foregoing that Burchfiel’s disclosure would teach or suggest to a person of ordinary skill that the connection table stores bidirectional path information.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 6,249,516 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,249,516 - Bungie, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · 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 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,829,634 - SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2017 · IPR2017-00649 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution on claims 1–30 because Petitioner did not show that the Board overlooked or misapprehended its obviousness arguments.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The Decision Denying Institution considered Petitioner’s argument regarding combining Bonella’s power reduction technique and Bonella’s power loss algorithm as it was presented in the Petition. Thus, Petitioner has not established the proposition that the Board overlooked or misapprehended some evidence in the record. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence. Thus, we are not persuaded by this argument.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot reached
“disclosed the specific feature alleged to be obvious. Req. Reh’g 12. We disagree. The Decision Denying Institution found that Long and Ashmore did not provide motivation for the specific combination advanced by Petitioner, stating “Petitioner does not point to a motivation to adjust the frequency of the memory banks specifically, simply a general motivation to reduce battery power during power loss.” Inst. Dec. 13. Thus, the Decision Denying Institution stated “we are not persuaded Ashmore [or Long] supports that contention that running at the frequency associated with Power Level 4 during a power loss would have been obvious.” Id. 13–14. “[T]o establish obviousness based on a combination of the elements disclosed in the prior art, there must be some motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that was made by the applicant.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2000) (citation omitted)(emphasis added)). “A determination of obviousness cannot be reached where the record lacks ‘explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.’” Hyundai Motor Co. v. Blitzsafe Texas, LLC, Case IPR2016-01476, slip op. at 32 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2017) (Paper 12) (quoting Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Decision Denying Institution properly followed this precedent in requiring a specific motivation to make the combination alleged by Petitioner to meet the claimed combination.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“CONCLUSION The Request for Rehearing does not demonstrate that we misapprehended or overlooked any matters raised in the Petition declining to institute review of claims 1–30.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,301,833
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.