• Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00953 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not proven unpatentable under either §103 ground because the evidence did not show the claimed viewability determination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive. Indeed, it is unclear how Petitioner’s proposal accounts for the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256 (identifying these factors, among others, as “a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art”). Nor does Petitioner, in its Reply, address, let alone rebut, Patent Owner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had some experience and/or knowledge in internet advertising. See generally Pet. Reply. Patent Owner proposes that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a similar major involving computer programming (or at least four years of practical computer programming experience) and at least two years of experience (in or out of college) in the field of internet advertising.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2045 ¶54). We agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have some experience in internet advertising, although we fail to see why one year would not be enough to familiarize sufficiently a computer scientist and/or programmer with the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. Based on the competing proposals, arguments, and evidence before us, we adopt and apply the following level of skill in assessing Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of the claims of the ’329 patent: a person that would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical (or similar) engineering with about three years of experience being in the field of internet advertising.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s resurrected argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of § 311(b). Section 311(b) provides: “A petitioner in an inter 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 cancel the claims of the ’329 patent on the basis of Badros, Harkins, and Krassner. Pet. 11. Petitioner did not base its request, in whole or in part, on the Krassner publication. Id. Krassner clearly is a patent. It issued on August 13, 2019, far too late to be § 102(b) prior art. Even if we assume Krassner is also a “printed publication” withing the meaning of § 311(b), the same date would apply: August 13, 2019. Petitioner has not presented any evidence that the document that is Krassner was published prior to when it issued on August 13, 2019. That another document (the Krassner publication), which published much earlier, may contain the same or similar disclosure is not relevant to when Krassner was patented or published. In sum, Krassner is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). b) Whether Krassner is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Although Krassner is not prior under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b), we” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner responds that, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, “Harkins teaches that its invention can be used in web pages.” Pet. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶30). Although Petitioner’s citation is off by one paragraph, Petitioner’s response about what Harkins teaches is correct. See Ex. 1004 ¶29 (“The present invention may be implemented for provision of virtually any type of advertising (e.g., print, radio, television, Internet, billboard, etc.) via any type of advertising medium (e.g., newspaper, magazine, radio broadcast, Web pages, billboards, etc.) without departing from the scope of the present invention.”). We find that Harkins is from the same field based on its express statement that it is applicable to “virtually any type of advertising” and “any type of advertising medium,” including “Web pages.” Ex. 1004 ¶29. Further, even if this were insufficient to place Harkins in the same field as the ’329 patent, we find that Harkins is reasonably pertinent to the particular problems with which the ’329 patent inventors were involved. In sum, we find that Harkins is analogous art to the ’329 patent.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “Paper 60 (“PO Mot. To Exclude”), 9–10.6 Patent Owner is correct in this regard and, thus, we grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude with respect to the testimony in the second Smedley Declaration and the Madansky Declaration opining that Badros teaches the determination limitation. Paper 60, 9–12. Petitioner, in its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, argues that Patent Owner’s arguments about the “viewability test” were “surprising.” Paper 62, 8. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. The “viewability test” is a claim limitation. Petitioner should have anticipated that Patent Owner would argue that limitation. See In re Gardner, 449 F. App’x 914, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“This court has held that when evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight.” (citing Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); Univ. of Strathclyde v. 6 Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude seeks to exclude, in part or in whole, Exhibits 1020–1022, 1025–1030, and 1034–1040, which were submitted with Petitioner’s Reply, of which Exhibits 1026 and 1027 are the declaration by Dr. Madansky and the second declaration by Dr. Smedley, respectively. Mot. To Exclude. The Motion to Exclude also seeks to exclude “Exhibits” 1017 and 1018, which are not filed or of record in this case but which are referenced in the Reply. Id. For example, Exhibit 1017 is the Krassner publication, which Petitioner unsuccessfully moved to add to the record as supplemental information. See Paper 21, 3 n.1 (expunging the Krassner publication and stating that it “need not -- and indeed may not -- be re-filed under a new exhibit number”). Apart from the portions of Dr. Smedley’s second declaration and Dr. Madansky’s declaration opining that Badros teaches the “determination” limitation, we dismiss the Motion to Exclude as moot. obviousness determination generally requires a finding that “all claimed limitations are disclosed in the prior art’.” (citing PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Petitioner argues that “[v]iewability tests were well known for well over a decade prior to the ’329 patent’s priority date.” Reply 9. If that were the case, then Petitioner should have made its argument in the Petition. Section 312(a) of Title 35 is titled “Requirements of Petition,” and it specifies that a petition must identify, among other things, “the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim, including . . . (B) affidavits or declarations of supporting evidence and opinions, if the petitioner relies on expert opinions.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon; and . . . the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge.”). Thus, “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 73 (Nov. 21, 2019).7 Dr. Smedley’s testimony in his second declaration, that “Badros discloses Patent Owner’s ‘viewability test’” (Ex. 1027 ¶11), is clearly evidence to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. The same is true of Dr. Madansky’s testimony that she agrees with Dr. Smedley in this regard. Ex. 1026 ¶4.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,443,329 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,443,329
• Snap Inc. / Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Palo Alto Research Center LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2023 · IPR2021-01294 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held all challenged claims 1–25 unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds and denied Patent Owner’s contingent motions to amend.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Snap proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’599 patent would have possessed “an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with at least two years of work experience in the field of content presentation and context-based systems/processes.” Snap Pet. 3 (citing Snap IPR, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–32); Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 32. Snap further asserts that additional “education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. In the Decision on Institution, we determined that Snap’s proposed description of the qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art aligned with the technology and claims of the ’599 patent. Snap Inst. Dec. 6–7. For this proceeding, Patent Owner and Dr. Martin apply this level of skill in the art. Snap PO Resp. 11–12; Snap IPR, Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 48–50. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the Decision on Institution, we adopt Snap’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Snap Inst. Dec. 6–7.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Dr. Martin also provides consistent testimony on this issue. Snap IPR, Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 81–82. Put simply, the Specification’s disclosure is that the set of rules for multiple content packages includes an expected response, and actions are then performed based on whether an expected response is or is not provided. Moreover, as Dr. Almeroth testifies, neither the claims nor the Specification use the term “unexpected response”—rather the Specification only identifies an “expected response.” Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 42. Accordingly, the disclosures in Table 1 and the Specification support Dr. Almeroth’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “the claimed ‘determin[e/ing]’ limitation requires what it plainly recites: ‘determin[e/ing] whether the received response matches the expected response[]’. . . . [i]t does not require an unexpected response not known to the system.” Snap IPR, Ex. 1022 ¶ 51.” slip op. at 18

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

    “time,’ ‘type of location,’ and other contextual information to automatically determine whether users would like to undertake learning activities.” Twitter Pet. Reply 18 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 1005, 2 3, 5 (“A check . . . to see if the information from the database corresponds with the location sensor (i.e. a check on whether the learner is really keeping his/her schedule).”), Fig.1; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1025 ¶ 49; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85, 157–162, 238, 435, 451, 517; Twitter Pet. 20–21). Accordingly, the evidence of record support that Yau teaches that context triggers the display of a content piece, such as an exercise/test/quiz. Patent Owner also argues that Twitter asserts that PALLES’ content piece is “‘exercise[s],’ ‘test[s],’ and/or ‘MP Quiz[zes],’” but also contends that Yau’s “formal assessment” is the claimed content piece. Twitter PO Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that “Twitter points back to its limitation 12.1 PALLAS evidence for the purported ‘content piece’” and also does not mention Yau for limitation 12.5 and 12.6 and “only conclusorily states that ‘PALLAS in view of Yau renders obvious triggering an exercise/test/quiz.’” Id. Patent Owner’s arguments overlook Twitter’s assertion, with Dr. Turnbull’s supporting testimony, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Yau’s formal assessments are “tests with answers for comparing against learner’s responses to assess knowledge/performance/skill (contrasting with ‘un-assessed’ exercises whose responses are unchecked).” Twitter Pet. 43; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1003 ¶ 154. Further, Patent Owner overlooks Petitioner’s assertion that it is implementing PALLAS’s context-triggerbased content display using Yau’s teachings of displaying assessments/questions based on context. Twitter Pet. 43. Patent Owner also asserts that in the PALLAS-Yau combination, Twitter does not explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art in the manner Petitioner alleges. Twitter PO Resp. 42. Patent Owner argues that “PALLAS says nothing about forcing quizzes, tests, or exercises on its users without the users asking for such exercises,” and a person of skill would understand that the combined system still requires that a student select a learning activity and that PALLAS’s system should be unobtrusive because learners “may have small time slots to engage in learning.” Id. (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶ 168; Twitter IPR, Ex. 1004, 54). Patent Owner further contends that “Twitter’s conclusory, hindsight-driven statements” do not suffice and PALLAS teaches away from the modifications suggested by Twitter. Id. at 42–43 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶ 144). Patent Owner argues that because a learner may not have time to complete a test, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to change PALLAS to trigger exercises/tests/quizzes based on location or time. Id. at 43 (citing Twitter IPR, Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 142–144). The evidence of record does not support Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 115

  • ScopeMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “2. Enlarging Scope of Claims Patent Owner asserts that it proposes narrowing limitations in direct response to the grounds of unpatentability involved in this proceeding. See, e.g., Snap Mot. 3–4. Facebook argues Patent Owner is “improperly attempting to enlarge the scope of the original claims.” Facebook Pet. Opp. 1. Facebook asserts, “[i]f ‘an expected response’ means one or more expected responses, therefore, determining whether the received response ‘matches the expected response’ means that the received response must match [all of] the one or more previously-recited expected responses in the content package.” Id. at 3 (emphasis omitted). Facebook then argues “the term ‘predefined response’ is broader than ‘expected response,’” because “an ‘expected response’ does not include any conceivable or possible response; it is a response that is expected.” Id. at 4–5 (emphasis omitted). Twitter argues that “‘predefined response’ is broader than ‘expected response’ because a ‘predefined response’ can include any possible response as long as that response has been somehow defined in advance.” Twitter Pet. Opp. 2. We consider the amendments in view of the claim as a whole. Although the term “one predefined response” may be broader than “an expected response,” we also consider the amended portion “wherein the received response is expected if the received response matches one or more of the at least one predefined response,” and “the received response is unexpected if the received response does not match any of the at least one predefined response.” Unless the response had been predefined within the content package, any “received response” could not be considered “expected” under the claims, and the additional clause requires a match of the response with the predefined response to be deemed “expected.” This equates to an equivalent scope to the original claim. This is consistent with Dr. Martin’s testimony, which we credit, that he is not aware of a situation where the substitute but not original claims are infringed because “[t]he substitute claims would only be satisfied when a ‘predefined response’ in the substitute claims is an ‘expected response’ in the original claims.” Facebook IPR, Ex. 2023 ¶ 59.” slip op. at 136

  Patent outcomesUS 8,489,599 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,489,599
• Corning Optical Communications LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00762 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–12 not unpatentable because Petitioner did not show that FlexWave Prism Manual was publicly accessible before the critical date.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Our determination regards obviousness to an ordinarily skilled person rather than “to the judge, or to a layman, or to those skilled in remote arts, or to geniuses in the art at hand.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). We therefore remove the open-ended term “a minimum of” from Petitioner’s proposal, and adopt for this decision the following definition: “a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had: (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering; and (2) 3–4 years of industry experience in wireless communications networks and engineering. However, an individual with an advanced degree in electrical engineering would require less industry experience (e.g., 1–2 years).” This level of skill comports with the teachings of the ’508 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017 (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). No claim terms require construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “c) Conclusion After considering this record evidence, Petitioner has not shown that one of ordinary skill would have performed the searches Mr. Stravitz performed on the EAS database. Mr. Stravitz’s searches appear to have been performed at the direction of counsel to discover whether and how FlexWave Prism Manual could be retrieved from the EAS database by someone who knew about FlexWave Prism Manual, without consideration of whether one of ordinary skill would have performed the searches absent a search directed towards FlexWave Prism Manual or would have known about the EAS database. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that one interested in and ordinarily skilled in the art relating to the ’508 patent would have found FlexWave Prism Manual using the EAS database.” slip op. at 25

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

    “For these reasons, our determination is that FlexWave Prism Manual has not been shown to be publicly available. E. Conclusion For the reasons given above, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that FlexWave Prism Manual was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons of ordinary skill in the art, exercising reasonable diligence, could have located it. All instituted grounds of unpatentability rely on FlexWave Prism Manual. Pet. 23–77; see Dec. on Inst. 17–29. Therefore, Petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the instituted grounds.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 9,826,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,826,508
• Twitter, Inc. v. Palo Alto Research Center Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · IPR2021-01398 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review is under 35 U.S.C. § 314. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). To institute an inter partes review, the information presented in the Petition must show “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’475 patent (December 2002) “would at minimum have a bachelor’s in software, computer, or electrical engineering or computer science with at least two years’ experience in software development, including with respect to web data analysis, or the equivalent.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 24). Patent Owner presents no proposed qualifications. See generally Prelim. Resp.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Neither party proposes any explicit claim constructions. Pet. 10; see generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage, no need exists to construe a claim term expressly to resolve the parties’ disputes. See 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

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “none of the combinations in the Petition were previously presented. Further, there is no overlap between the arguments made during examination and the representations of the prior art in this proceeding. Therefore, with respect to Chen and Cook, the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented. Further, even if Chen is cumulative to Heer as alleged by Patent Owner, Petitioner demonstrates that the Examiner materially erred for the reasons explained below. As the parties indicate, the Examiner stated as reasons for allowance for the “independent claims,” that “the prior art of record does not teach: combining the multi-modal information for content portions associated and the proximal information for content portions associated with the user path to form a user profile having a unified representation.” See Pet. 85; Prelim. Resp. 26; Ex. 1002, 123. Patent Owner now argues that the primary difference between Heer (or Chen, if, as Patent Owner alleges, it is “cumulative” to Heer) and independent claims 1 and 10 is that the claims require using proximal information in the user profile. See Prelim. Resp. 26. But as discussed above (§ I.E.5), Patent Owner also admits that the asserted prior art at least separately teaches using proximal information and multi-modal information. See Prelim. Resp. 36–37 (arguing that “each” of the prior art references relied upon by Petitioner “relates to using either multi-modal information or proximal information, but not both”). Nevertheless, nothing in the prosecution history, including the Examiner’s reasons for allowance or citation and limited discussion of Heer with respect to dependent claims (Ex. 1002, 78–79, 123), shows that the Examiner was aware that Heer (even if it is cumulative to Chen) taught everything in the independent claims except for combining proximal information as part of the user profile. Also, the prosecution history does not show that Patent Owner informed the Examiner, or that the Examiner was aware, of Patent Owner’s current admission that the prior art “relates to using either multi-modal information or proximal information, but not both.” See Prelim. Resp. 36–37. Petitioner shows that the Examiner did not apply Heer as the primary basis for rejecting independent claims 1 and 10, which Petitioner essentially does here with respect to Chen. See Pet. 84 (arguing that “Heer was relied on, but only for dependent claims 9 and 18”) citing Ex. 1002, 78–79); see Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10–11 & n.10 (reasoning that Becton Dickinson factor c, “the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection,” is a material error factor). And Petitioner sufficiently shows that “Chen and Cooke were not previously presented” during prosecution. Pet. 84. As summarized above, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Chen, with Chi and other secondary references, suggests combining multi-modal information with proximal information such as surrounding text associated with links and images wherein Chen specifically teaches flexibly employing all manner of such multi-modal information to aid in assigning users to clusters. See supra § II.E.; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 16, 18, 22; Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9–11 & n.10 (reasoning that Becton Dickinson factor f, “additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments,” and Becton Dickinson factor e, the extent the Petition shows error, are a material error factors).” slip op. at 36

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,043,475
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. M & K Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 11, 2019 · IPR2018-00697 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Budagavi, WD3-v1, and Sole; the motion to amend is granted, adding substitute claims 8–14.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “A. Principles of Law It is a petitioner’s burden to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said 2 Budagavi et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0170594 A1 (July 14, 2011, filed Dec. 30, 2010) (Ex. 1005). 3 Sole et al., Unified Scans for the Significance Map and Coefficient level Coding in High Coding Efficiency, JCTVC-E335 (version 3) (uploaded Mar. 19, 2011) (Ex. 1006). 4 Thomas Wiegand et al., WD3: Working Draft 3 of High-Efficiency Video Coding, JCTVC-E603 (version 1) (uploaded March 30, 2011) (Ex. 1007). subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on the following underlying factual determinations: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.5 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We analyze the asserted grounds with the principles stated above in mind.” slip op. at 9

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

    “1, which teaches using a single scan depending on a prediction mode, with teachings related to Figure 2, which teaches scanning subsets in a different direction than scanning coefficients within a subset (without teaching the two scans depend on the intra prediction mode). See Ex. 1006, 1–2, Figs. 1 and 2; Opp. 8–9 (citing Pet. 43–49; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 134–135). In so doing, Petitioner improperly combines two teachings from separate embodiments without an adequate reason. As the main reason for the combination, Petitioner contends that Sole combines the teachings from the two embodiments. See Pet. 45 (arguing “Sole also discloses using a backward zigzag scan for scanning the quantized coefficients of each subset and the plurality of subsets, which is a modified version of the scan technique shown in Figure 2” (emphasis added)), 45–51 (relying on what Sole allegedly teaches and explaining why an artisan of ordinary skill would have looked to Sole). Dr. Kalva credibly testifies that Sole does not teach combining the teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 2025 ¶ 91 (“Sole repeatedly asserts that its aim is to apply the same scan pattern used for the significance map to the coefficient level coding (e.g., the quantized coefficients.)”), ¶ 94 (The conclusion that Sole does not teach or suggest scanning subsets using a scan pattern determined by the intra prediction mode is confirmed by Davies and Sole II.”), ¶ 95 (“[T]he subsets are not scanned, let alone scanned using a scan pattern determined by the intra prediction”).” slip op. at 103

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

    “algorithm implements a single scan direction without suggesting retaining the sub-block concept and without suggesting scanning sub-blocks according to an intra prediction mode. Therefore, Sole does not teach scanning a plurality of subsets according to an intra prediction mode as claim 8 requires. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to meet the burden of showing that a person of ordinary skill would have considered the combined teachings of Budagavi and Sole to meet the last limitation of proposed substitute claim 8. After reviewing the entire record, we determine Petitioner has not shown that the subject matter of proposed substitute claim 8 would have been obvious over Budagavi and Sole. We therefore grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend as to proposed substitute claim 8. 2. Patentability of Claims 9–14 Because the parties do present not separate arguments for proposed substitute claims 9–14, which depend from proposed substitute claim 8, they stand with claim 8. Accordingly, we further grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend as to these proposed substitute dependent claims. IV.” slip op. at 107

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner does not meet the burden on its Motion. In addition, even if we disregard statements by Mr. Bross in paragraphs 11 and 12 that we hold here fall under a hearsay exception or constitute non-hearsay, it would not alter the outcome, given other evidence, including (but not requiring) the evidence of a verbal act discussed above, and including other Exhibits discussed above collectively showing that interested artisans exercising reasonable diligence should have been able to visit the website and would have known it archived HEVC standards, lending a reason to visit it.” slip op. at 115

  Patent outcomesUS 9,191,673 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,191,673
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Innovative Memory Systems, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2016 · IPR2016-00326 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Rehearing

  On rehearing, the Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 13 based on anticipation by Anderl and obviousness over Anderl or Anderl and Hendry.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “On June 17, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 13, “Request” or “Reh’g Req.”) of our Decision to Institute (Paper 10, “Decision”) an inter partes review in this case. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s Request, and we agree that we overlooked the matters identified in the Request. See Reh’g Req. 2–4. Thus, for the reasons stated in the Request, we grant Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing. On rehearing, we withdraw our previous Decision and reconsider our Decision in light of the full record, as Patent Owner requests. Id. at 4. Pursuant to this reconsideration, we issue the instant Amended Decision to Institute.” slip op. at 2

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

    “determine that the information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1, 2, and 13 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’537 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenOther

    “limitation, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown adequately that Anderl discloses “said appended information featuring said at least one associated type of permission for accessing the stored data,” as recited in claim 1. Patent Owner focuses narrowly on the value of the data included in protection bytes 43 to 45 of Anderl. See Prelim. Resp. 13–15. Yet the claim does not focus only on the data alone, but instead recites “appended information.” As the Petition explains, Anderl discloses that the information is appended based on location in file as the value at the particular location. See Pet. 23–24. In particular, Anderl discloses that each file includes prefix section 41 that is located in the first record of each file and contains file identification number 42 and protection bytes 43, 44, and 45. Ex. 1005, 6:57–60. Anderl states that “[t]he protection bytes 43 through 45 specify the file permissions.” Id. at 6:65–66 (emphasis added). As Anderl discloses,” slip op. at 20

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

    “not persuaded that “type of permission” is limited to only the type of action that can be performed, e.g., reading or writing, with respect to the data. Instead, the Specification repeatedly refers to the “types of permissions” as “for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract (“The device, method and system enable various types of permissions to be set for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.”); 2:32–36 (“The present invention enables various types of permissions to be set for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data which does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied.”); 3:4:26–30 (same). Given this broader usage in the Specification, for purposes of this decision, the “type of permission” is for determining access to the stored data, such that if an attempt is made to access particular data that does not have a suitable permission type, access is denied. The access, if not denied, may include reading from or writing to the stored data. As for “featuring,” we are not persuaded that “featuring,” as used in claim 1 of the ’537 patent is synonymous with “represent,” as Patent Owner contends. A relevant meaning of “featuring” is “to be an important part or aspect of something.” See Ex. 3001. This meaning only requires that the thing that is featured be an important part or aspect, not that it correspond to or represent the thing. Patent Owner does not point us to any disclaimer or definition that would limit this meaning. See Prelim. Resp. 13–15. Instead, the Specification appears to use the related term “feature” in this ordinary sense. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:54–56 (“As another option, the device may feature a single chip with a microprocessor and firmware for operating the data access features ….”); 5:25– 27 (“A system 10 features a CPU 12 for executing instructions….”); 8:15–19 (“For example, an access control code could be implemented with a combination of different types of data, each of which could again feature a separately selected and assigned data access permission, which optionally and preferably is different for each portion of the data.”). Moreover, the portion of Specification cited by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:34–61)) makes clear that it only refers to a preferred embodiment and the permissions do not need to be stored as a “code,” i.e., specific information or data representing the permission. See id. at 6:35–36 (“According to preferred embodiments…”), 6:43–47 (“If such a permission is to be stored in an abbreviated code, the code for this particular type of permission could be given as ‘R/W/WP’, for example. Such a code could optionally be stored in the non-volatile 16, for example.” (emphases added)). Such optional language is not sufficient to limit the claimed “appended information” to only something that “represents” the permission, such as a code. See Prolitec Inc. v. Scentair Techs., Inc., 807 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he use of ‘may’ signifies that the inventors did not intend to limit [the claim]. . . .”); Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 735 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting that non-limiting examples are not sufficient to redefine a term).” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,324,537
• Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00483 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17 are unpatentable as anticipated by Provino; claims 2–5 and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Provino with Kosiur and Xu, respectively.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “Apple Incorporated (“Petitioner”) also filed a Petition (Paper 2) seeking an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’274 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 in Case IPR2014- 00483 (“’483 IPR”). Noting that Microsoft Corporation’s Petition and Apple Incorporated’s Petition were substantially identical in material aspects, the Board instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18, and joined IPR2014-00483 with IPR2014-00403 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). See ’483IPR, Paper 11, 6–9.2 Thereafter, pursuant to a settlement agreement, the present proceeding was terminated with respect to Microsoft Corporation only. Paper 38.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed petitioner constructionDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “proceeding somehow limits the claims here that Patent Owner otherwise could have moved to amend under a broadest reasonable construction, Patent Owner’s arguments were not “unambiguous,” and do not “call for the application of prosecution history disclaimer.” See PO Resp. 17–18. There was no “express disclaimer,” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, or “unambiguous disavowal[],” Grober, 686 F.3d at 1341.” slip op. at 11

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

    “As the latter two sentences show, the ’274 patent Specification describes placing field hopping data (i.e., an address hopping technique, see id. at 46:64–47:11), into a payload portion of a data packet. The Specification does not tie “tunneled” packets into a specific requirement that requires a change in formatting––above and apart from any protocol formatting or structural change that may happen to, or does, occur by placing one type of data field (header) into another type of data field (payload). After discussing the insertion of the field hopping data into the payload portion, the Specification then describes that these “modified message packets preferably conform to the UDP protocol,” or “[a]lternatively . . . can conform to the TCP/IP protocol or the ICPM protocol.” Id. at 50:30–35. In other words, if there is a change in a protocol in these disclosed examples––for example, from one protocol format to a UDP protocol format––any change appears to come in preferred embodiments and after the packets have been modified (i.e., tunneled). Accordingly, based on the foregoing discussion, we modify our construction as set forth in the Institution Decision, such that “tunnel packeting” means “placing data or information from one field, such as a header, into another packet field, such as a payload, wherein the two fields normally have different structures or formats, or placing data structured in one format within the format of another protocol.”” slip op. at 22

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

    “In any event, to the extent it is material, the ’274 patent Specification employs the term “user’s computer” in a “conventional scheme . . . shown in FIG 25. A user’s computer 2501 includes a client application 2504 (for example a web browser) . . . .” Ex. 1001, 38:61–63. Although Patent Owner refers to this “conventional” computer as “another embodiment,” the ’274 patent Specification disparages the “conventional architecture” that employs a user’s computer, because it is not secure enough. See Ex. 1001, 39:4–13; PO Resp. 21. In general, the ’274 patent Specification states that “[t]he present invention” involves a “client computer” with a “client application” that “communicates with a server.” See Ex. 1001, 7:40–44. This description of “[t]he present invention” does not mention a “user’s computer.” Therefore, the ’274 patent Specification does not repeatedly treat a “client computer” and a “user’s computer” as the same. The broadest reasonable construction of a client computer is a computer associated with a client.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,987,274 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,987,274
• Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 11, 2014 · IPR2012-00020 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–7 were held unpatentable over Wennekamp, claims 8 and 12–14 over Wennekamp and Miller, and claim 9 over Wennekamp, Miller, and Siniaguine; claim 1 was cancelled by amendment.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “preponderance of the evidence that claims 2-9 and 12-14 of the ’897 patent are unpatentable. Xilinx’s Motion to Amend, requesting the cancellation of claim 1, is granted.” slip op. at 2

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “(1) multi-die ICs were known at the time of the invention; (2) Wennekamp would have suggested, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the use of multi-die ICs; and (3) arranging Wennekamp’s devices using multi-die ICs was within the skill set of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In particular, Wennekamp describes that communication between devices may be accomplished using a number of circuit configurations (Ex. 1009, 7:35-42), and IVM has demonstrated that a multidie configuration is one such compatible configuration. See Pet. 6-7; Ex. 1002 ¶ 27; Pet. Reply 7; Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 25-26. Xilinx’s expert, Dr. Blanchard, testified that Wennekamp does not suggest using a multi-die configuration. Ex. 2006 ¶ 23-26. That testimony, however, does not outweigh the testimony of IVM’s expert, Mr. Johnson, that Wennekamp does suggest using a multi-die configuration. Specifically, Dr. Blanchard’s statements are conclusory. For example, Dr. Blanchard does not explain what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known with respect to multi-die ICs at the time of the invention. Instead, Dr. Blanchard merely concludes that those portions of Wennekamp to which IVM directs attention (e.g., Ex. 1009, 3:15-26, 7:35-42) do not teach or suggest the use of multi-die ICs. Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 24-25. Such conclusory testimony is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Moreover, arranging the master and slave devices of Wennekamp as individual dies on an IC would facilitate Wennekamp’s goal of minimizing the consumption of board routing resources and using shorter wires to prevent the degradation of signal quality. See Pet. 7-8; Ex. 1002 ¶ 27; Pet. Reply 8. Indeed, Xilinx’s expert, Dr. Blanchard, explained, during cross-examination, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of using multi-die ICs, as opposed to placing multiple ICs on a printed circuit board. Ex. 1016, 33:19-34:7. Making the modification to Wennekamp would not have been beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore, would have been obvious. Ex. 1002 ¶ 27; Ex. 1017 ¶26. In sum, based on the totality of the evidence, multi-die ICs were known at the time of the invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of arranging programmable devices on multi-die ICs. Such a configuration would have improved the Wennekamp arrangement. Moreover, making such a modification would have been well within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

  • BurdenFwd mixedUnpatentable

    “We give the above testimony substantial weight because the explanation Mr. Johnson provides is consistent with Wennekamp, particularly the description at column 6, lines 21-41. That is, device 400 (which may be master device 320, for example) determines if instructions are for the master device or another device, such as 330A or “additional IC” 330B. As explained above in the cited testimony, if there was no such determining, the POUT enable would not function as described. In contrast, Xilinx’s arguments and evidence do not rebut IVM’s arguments and evidence.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,058,897 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,058,897

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.