- Clearcorrect Operating, LLC v. Align Technology Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00814 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim over the asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“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 subject matter pertains. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations including: (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 ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any objective indicia of nonobviousness.7 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness determination requires finding a reason to combine accompanied by a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed in the challenged patent. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419–20.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“tripping” as “any motion of a tooth in any direction other than directly toward the desired final position.” Ex. 1004, 4:12–13. Chishti-511 teaches minimizing round-tripping (“teeth are moved in the quickest fashion with the least amount of round-tripping”), but acknowledges that “[r]ound-tripping is sometimes necessary to allow teeth to move past each other.” Id. at 4:9–15. In an attempt to counter Patent Owner’s teaching away arguments, Petitioner relies heavily on Chishti-511’s statement that “[r]ound[-]tripping is sometimes necessary.” See Pet. 29–30; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 83 (Dr. Yadav relying on Chishti-511). This reliance is unavailing, because as noted above, Chishti-511 defines “round-tripping” more broadly than is claimed here. Indeed, in the ’444 IPR, the Board stated that “the ‘round tripping’ described in Chishti ’511 is something different than the ‘round tripping’ required by the ’444 patent.”10 Ex. 1008, 16. Despite being aware of this prior finding 10 In the ’444 IPR, the Board employed the same construction of “round-tripping” that we use here. Compare Ex. 1008, 6, with Section II.C supra. (see Pet. 6), Petitioner here fails to address the difference between Chishti- 511’s round-tripping and the claimed round-tripping. That is, Petitioner places great weight on Chishti-511’s statement that “round-tripping is sometimes necessary,” but has not established that Chishti-511 contemplates round-tripping as claimed, as opposed to some other, different movement pattern encompassed by Chishti-511’s broader statement about round-tripping.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“discussion of “need[ing] collision-free treatment paths,” skilled artisans would have turned to Becker. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:15–22). But on this record, and especially in view of the teachings away from round-tripping, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that a skilled artisan would have combined Becker’s movement pattern with the Chishti systems and Sachdeva. In particular, the Petition and supporting materials lack sufficient argument and evidence for us to conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Becker’s movement pattern in the context of an aligner treatment. Becker is a textbook relating to the orthodontic treatment of impacted teeth. Ex. 1006, 1 (Title). Patent Owner correctly states that “Becker is a different orthodontic treatment modality compared to the Chishti references,” using “braces and numerous brackets, wires, and rubber bands, with the wire-and-bracket systems being attached directly and permanently to the teeth.” Prelim. Resp. 21–22; see also supra Section II.D.4. “Becker involves traditional orthodontic practice: manual, by-eye adjustment of its archwires, elastic thread, and palatal wires by a treating orthodontist in repeated office visits.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Chishti-511, in contrast, uses “treatment planning software” to “pre-stag[e] a series of tooth positions from which a sequence of appliances can be manufactured.” Id. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that “Becker at best shows that round-tripping was an option in limited circumstances involving wire-and-bracket treatment.” See Prelim. Resp. 3. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence that using aligners to effect Becker’s tooth transposition “would be appropriate or even possible.” Id. at 22. As Patent Owner correctly notes, Petitioner does not point to any teaching in Becker regarding aligner treatment or corresponding treatment planning software. Id. at 23. Nor are we directed to any portions of Chishti-511, Chishti-876, or Sachdeva that mention using aligners to transpose teeth. These omissions are important because “[i]n contrast to treatment with braces, in which wires are manually adjusted by the orthodontist to move teeth reactively, aligner treatment involves treatment planning in which a detailed path of teeth is calculated in advance.” Id. at 4. Given these differences, Petitioner has not persuasively explained why Becker’s tooth movement pattern and mechanism would have been of interest to a skilled artisan who was” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“as of the August 30, 2006 claimed priority date would have been part of an interdisciplinary team. This team would have included a member with an advanced degree related to dentistry (e.g., BDS, MDS, DDS, DMD) with experience in orthodontics, including 1–3 years of orthodontic training or equivalent experience, and experience using clear aligners. The team may have also included members with a degree in a technical area related to software, graphics, computers, or a related discipline. This technical team member would have had 1–3 years of software development experience. For all team members, more education could substitute for experience and vice versa. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–24; Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 23–25; Ex. 1029; Ex. 1030). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,456,217 - Clearcorrect Operating, LLC v. Align Technology Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00815 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because ClearCorrect did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–24 would have been obvious over Chishti-511, Chishti-876, Sachdeva, and Becker.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“3. Analysis In view of the arguments and cited evidence, we find on this record that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Becker’s round-tripping with the teachings of the Chishti patents and Sachdeva.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Neither party indicates that any other claim term requires express construction. Only claim terms in controversy need be construed. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no other claim term requires construction.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITA
“Court for the Western District of Texas (see supra Section I.B), they jointly adopted the definition of “round-tripping” set forth in the ’879 patent Specification. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 8; Ex. 1013, 8. The ’879 patent Specification defines “round-tripping” as moving a first tooth out of the path of a second tooth, and once the second tooth has moved sufficiently, moving the first tooth back to its previous position before proceeding to a desired final position of that first tooth. See Ex. 1001, 13:9–13. We adopt this agreed-upon construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,524,879 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00846 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–13, 15, 16, 18–24, and 26–29 as obvious over Burger; claims 3, 14, and 17 over Burger and Robinson; claims 6 and 25 over Burger and …
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“For the same reasons, and based on the same evidence, given in the ’233 FWD, we maintain our construction of “a third party that operates a trusted authority,” namely, “a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction,” and make clear that such a transaction is not limited to those in which the principal parties are the user being allowed access and the application being accessed. Based on the complete record, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner contends that “it would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to incorporate the age verification method of Robinson in Burger so that Burger’s system can be used by businesses interested in conducting transactions that require age-verification.” Pet. 93. Petitioner argues that it would have been predictable to include Robinson’s age-verification feature in Burger’s system in light of Robinson’s explanation that merchants and their employees face penalties if they sell age-restricted goods (e.g., alcohol or tobacco) to underage individuals. Id. at 94–95 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–80). Dr. Traynor testifies that there would have been “a reasonable expectation of success because it merely involves combining known elements in a manner that would have been easily implemented and obvious to” a skilled artisan. Ex. 1003 ¶ 80. We credit Dr. Traynor’s uncontroverted testimony and find that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine the teachings of Burger and Robinson. As to claims 3, 14, and 17, Robinson describes a user registering a biometric sample, identity-verifying information (SID), and age-verifying information with a database of an age-verification system. Pet. 95–96 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15, 28, 43, 48; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–178). We find that a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Burger and Robinson, such that Robinson’s age-verifying information would have been stored in the database of Burger’s network server 114. Id. at 95 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 176). Patent Owner does not provide separate arguments for claims 3, 14, and 17. PO Resp. 22. limitations of claims 3, 14, and 17, and that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, for combining Burger and Robinson. The record does not contain evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. Upon consideration of all the evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3, 14, and 17 would have been obvious over Burger and Robinson.” slip op. at 36
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find that, after Burger’s network server 114 authenticates a user’s pocket vault ID, the user is granted access to pocket vault 102 and can select a transaction from a displayed menu, including use of a credit card. subsequent access to that credit card information, either by displaying it or through token 102a, is because network server 114 sent a communication to pocket vault 102 indicating that it successfully authenticated the pocket vault. Ex. 1003 ¶ 115. This is the obvious inference a skilled artisan would have drawn from Burger’s description of authenticating the pocket vault and subsequently allowing credit card information to be used. Thus, we find that, in this example, the operator of network server 114 is a third party that operates a trusted authority, the principle parties to the transaction are the user of pocket vault 102 and the retailer, and a message from network server 114 to pocket vault 102 allowing the credit card to be used (displayed or encoded in the token) is an access message allowing the user access to the application (file with credit card information). Accordingly, we find that this example of Burger teaches claim limitations 1.4 and 1.5.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,886,954 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,886,954 - PTAB · Oct 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00702 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 4, 5, 16, 17, and 19 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 4 was obvious over Nakamura and Benini.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2023). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’270 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’270 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in 2004 would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field, with at least two years of relevant experience working with VR [virtual reality] and AR [augmented reality] systems. Additional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience. Pet. 27 (citing Welch Decl. ¶¶ 88–90, 91). Patent Owner, at this stage, does not disagree or propose a different definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). “[W]hile extrinsic evidence can shed useful light on the relevant art, . . . it is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (internal quotation marks omitted). We construe expressly only those claim terms that require analysis to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Petitioner contends that “[t]his Petition establishes the prior art meets each of the claim limitation[s] under any reasonable construction,” and, “[t]hus, no express construction is required.” Pet. 27–28. Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response does not contain a separate claim construction section. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“1. Setting an origin location Limitation 4.a.1 recites, “a first manual input for setting a[n] origin location setting for a location reference for gameplay.” Ex. 1001, 24:44–46. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not shown that this limitation disclosed or rendered obvious by the relied-on references. See Prelim. Resp. 29. Petitioner contends that Nakamura teaches the user’s manual selection of a starting point of a game. Pet. 38–40 (citing, inter alia, Welch Decl. ¶¶ 147–148; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 9, 35–36, Fig. 5); see also id. at 62 (for this Ground 2, referencing the contentions made for Ground 1). Petitioner further contends that “[a] POSITA would have also recognized that the initial position setting provides a location reference for gameplay.” Id. at 63. For this Ground 2, Patent Owner incorporates by reference its arguments regarding Ground 1 based on Cheok, Nakamura, and Foxlin077. See Prelim. Resp. 29. Patent Owner argues that “Nakamura’s position icon 113 [displayed at a virtual location appropriate for the initial position] represents a virtual character’s virtual location in the virtual world, rather than a user’s physical location, and has no relationship to the physical location.” Prelim. Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 36, 38). According to Patent Owner, “establishing a physical origin location as a location reference is critical to key features of the patented system.” Id. at 25 (citing Section III of the Preliminary Response). Patent Owner’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the language of claim 4, which recites an input for setting “a[n] origin location,” not “a physical origin location.” In support of its arguments, Patent Owner relies on the Specification, stating, for example, that “[t]he ’270 patent’s system ‘prompt[s] a user to” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,967,270 - PTAB · Oct 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00746 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3 of the ’151 patent over Levine under §103, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Conclusion as to Independent Claims Having reviewed the contentions Petitioner has presented, with supporting evidence, and in light of Patent Owner’s arguments made in the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contentions of obviousness for claims 1 and 2 of the ’582 patent and claim 1 of the ’151 patent.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. As stated in our summary of Petitioner’s contentions, Petitioner relies on what would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art given Levine’s programming architecture and providing a button or other interface for the avatar to perform an action in that game. It seems reasonable, at this juncture, that Levine’s teachings of various actions that characters of a game can take (picking up a sword, for example), combined with the teaching that a user can press *9999 to “kill” a monster, reasonably support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would use Levine’s teachings of a client interacting with a game object (by clicking a mouse, angling the joystick or pressing a trigger button) to provide a button to “shoot” the sniper’s rifle as argued by Petitioner. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 211, 528, 659. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s characterization of Levine as having no need for manual control of the “sniper” rifle. None of the passages of Levine that Patent Owner points to state that the actions by an avatar are automated. And even if some automation of actions were implemented in a game, Levine leaves it to the game designer to implement the set of rules on how the user’s actions would affect the state of the objects in the game. See id. ¶ 351. Accordingly, given the latitude of design options that Levine describes to interact with an avatar, Petitioner’s contention of using Levine’s interface space with buttons appears to be a reasonable and suitable option for playing Levine’s “sniper” game, and require the manual interaction with such a button to “shoot” the rifle.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill, would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location information. A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience. 745 Pet. 4−5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21−25); 746 Pet. 4−5. Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill. As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,974,151 - PTAB · Oct 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00703 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 4, 11, 16, 30, and 102 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Cheok and Foxlin077.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“persuasive for several reasons. As an initial matter, the claim does not recite “a bounded physical play space.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.”” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in 2004 would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with at least two years of relevant experience working with VR [Virtual Reality] and AR [Augmented Reality] systems. Additional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience. Welch ¶95; see also ¶¶94. Pet. 17. Patent Owner, at this stage, does not disagree or propose a different definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“references’ teachings. Prelim. Resp. 36–38. Patent Owner specifically argues that “[t]here is no motivation to modify Cheok’s method for allegedly determining the direction of gameplay to include a prompt requesting a manually provided direction; it already allegedly determines direction by the user’s simple movement, which the user will already do while playing the game, a much more efficient process.” Id. at 36 (citing Pet., 29–36). According to Patent Owner, “[a]dding a prompt requesting manual user input for a direction of gameplay has drawbacks to user experience; it slows down the beginning of gameplay and complicates the overall system, removing the natural feel of playing without having to set up the game, when Cheok already works for its intended purpose.” Id. at 36–37. We do not find these arguments persuasive at this stage. Even if Patent Owner is correct that the proposed combination would be less efficient or slow down the beginning of play, that there may be drawbacks from the proffered combination of teachings does not necessarily show a lack of motivation to combine teachings. Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000). And, even if the proposed combination would not have been the best choice, that does not necessarily mean that it was non-obvious. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Dr. Welch testifies, for example, that “[a] POSITA would have . . . recognized it would be beneficial to improve the Cheok system by implementing a similar inertial sensor initialization/reinitialization process [as in Foxlin077] to address any potential accuracy or user experience issues associated with drift.” Welch Decl. ¶ 156. Dr. Welch also testifies that, “in a virtual environment application like the Cheok system, in which a user must interact with the real environment, a POSITA would have understood that Foxlin077’s manual reinitialization process would be beneficial to address accumulated drift when an automatic drift compensator component is not sufficiently removing drift.” Id. ¶ 157. At this stage, that testimony is unrebutted with evidence, as opposed to mere attorney argument.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2023). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’821 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’821 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,033,821 - PTAB · Oct 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00743 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 8, 16, and 18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized by statute “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1, 8, 16, and 18 of the ’716 patent. Accordingly, we institute the requested inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we agree with Petitioner that Claim 16 does not require the virtual object to be displayed and controlled simultaneously. We highlight that claims 1, 14, 16, and 18 use the word “simultaneously” when requiring certain actions to occur at the same time. The fact that patentee used the word “simultaneously” to require certain claimed actions to occur at the same time, but did not use the word “simultaneously” in the claim term “a virtual object is operable to be displayed . . . and controlled” indicates that the patentee did not intend that the actions of displaying the virtual object and controlling of the virtual object are required to occur simultaneously. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.”). Further, the Specification discloses that a user can manually purge an unseen virtual email located in a virtual trash can, which shows that in at least this embodiment, the user can manually control a virtual object while the virtual object is not being displayed. Patent Owner’s contention that the user is telling the virtual trash can to act does not address the fact that the user’s manual input controls the unseen virtual email by purging the unseen virtual email from the virtual trash can. This embodiment of purging an unseen virtual object further indicates that the scope of this claim term does not require displaying the virtual object and controlling the virtual object simultaneously. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case.”). We do not construe “wherein a first virtual object is operable to be displayed on said head-mounted display and controlled with manual input,” as recited in claim 16, to require controlling the virtual object “while it is being displayed,” as proposed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. . . . A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness rejection. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The ’716 patent “relates to improved portable devices” such as head-mounted displays. Ex. 1001, 1:30, Fig. 9. Ronzani “relates generally to systems and methods for mounting display . . . systems to the human body” such as head-mounted displays. Ex. 1003 ¶ 5. Ohshima “relates to a game apparatus” such as a head-mounted display. Ex. 1005, 1:9, 5:34–36, Fig. 4. We are sufficiently persuaded that Ronzani, Ohshima, and the ’716 patent are from the same field of endeavor of head-mounted displays. Also, the ’716 patent discloses a camera that addresses the problem of providing video information “of the environment in the user’s field of vision” (Ex. 1001, 14:53–64), which is the same problem addressed by Ohshima’s camera (Ex. 1005, 6:48–49; 7:24–25, 7:64–65, Figs. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11). We are sufficiently persuaded that Ronzani and Ohshima are analogous to the ’716 patent, and that a person of ordinary skill would have had sufficient basis to turn to both Ronzani and Ohshima.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Ronzani and Ohshima. Petitioner relies on Ronzani to teach a head-mounted display device for entertainment applications that display virtual images. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2, 5, 170). Petitioner relies on Ohshima to teach implementation details of a specific entertainment application that displays virtual images. Id. at 40–41. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Ronzani’s head-mounted display device to include Ohshima’s virtual reality game for the benefit of achieving Ronzani’s goal of entertainment. Id. (citing Ex. 2:33–38, 6:57–59, 11:22– 26, 11:66–12:2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 135). Petitioner also contends that applying Ohshima’s technique of playing a game using a head-mounted display device to Ronzani’s head-mounted display device would improve Ronzani’s head-mounted display device in the same way. Pet. 41–42. We are sufficiently persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used Ronzani’s head-mounted device to run Ohshima’s virtual reality game for the benefit of providing the user of the device with entertainment. We are also sufficiently persuaded that the combination of Ronzani and Ohshima “simply arranges old elements [of a head-mounted display device and a virtual reality game] with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,947,716 - PTAB · Oct 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00744 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claims 21, 23, 31, 37, 41, and 42 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 21 is obvious over Fager and Martins.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’791 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’791 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location information (such as GPS information associated with a user’s physical location), and in designing and/or developing computer systems/software involving graphical virtual and/or augmented reality. A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience. Pet. 4 (citing Cooperstock Decl. ¶¶ 21–25). Patent Owner, at this stage, does not disagree or propose a different definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “[t]he prior art cited herein . . . renders the challenged claims obvious under any reasonable construction,” and “Petitioner therefore respectfully submits that, for purposes of this IPR, express constructions are not required.” Pet. 7. Patent Owner contends that “no express claim construction is necessary for the purposes of this Preliminary Response,” and “[t]he challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, consistent with the specification and as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 7. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“It is our understanding that Petitioner’s obviousness theory merely relies on Martins’ teaching of using camera images to detect a surface of physical objects. See Pet. 21 (“It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Martins’ teachings regarding using camera images to detect a surface of a physical object with Fager’s augmented reality and head-mounted display system.” (citing Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 84). The proposed resulting combination is “using the camera of Fager’s head-mounted display to capture images used to detecting physical surfaces of a play area, such as the floor, ceiling, and walls of a room in which a user wishes to play a game of, for example, virtual tennis.” Id. at 21–22 (citing Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 84). According to Petitioner, the combination would use images to detect wall surfaces, and that it would have been obvious “to apply the same functionality to detect the surfaces of other objects in Fager’s game, such as the ‘suspended lamp’ described in Fager and other objects, given that Fager’s system models the behavior and movement of virtual objects (such as a ‘fictitious ball’) based on the determined surfaces of real-world objects.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80, 83, 85). Petitioner contends, inter alia, that the proposed combination would have been obvious as “the combination of prior art elements, with no change in their respective functions, according to known methods—i.e., simply using the camera of the user’s head-mounted display for performing surface detection in connection with modeling the user’s physical environment.” Id. at 21 (citing Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 84). Petitioner also contends that Fager provides a motivation in explaining that its system is primarily applied indoors, where there are surfaces such as floors, ceilings, and walls, and that physical objects may be incorporated into game play. Id. at 22–23. Petitioner’s contentions are supported by the testimony of Dr. Cooperstock, which, at this stage, is unrebutted. We determine that Petitioner has shown adequately for purposes of institution that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to make the proposed combination and that the proposed combination would result in the claimed subject matter.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,019,791 - PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00739 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 3, and 6–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Jaszlics and Rallison.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized by statute “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the record before us, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1, 8, 13, and 20 of the ’277 patent. Accordingly, we institute the requested inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location information (such as GPS information associated with a user’s physical location), and in designing and/or developing computer systems/software involving graphical virtual and/or augmented reality. A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience. (EX1002, ¶¶21-25.) Pet. 4. Patent Owner at this stage does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. As Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” The Specification’s discussions of “playfield” cited by Patent Owner use non-limiting language such as “for example” and “may” in describing the playfield. See Ex. 1001, 2:37–41, 2:61–67, 3:21–23, 8:50–64. The disclosed examples of “a physical playfield” include “the physical world, a physical environment, or a defined physical playfield” (Ex. 1001, 1:56–58), which indicates that the applicant intended “a physical playfield” as claimed to encompass more than a defined or “bounded” physical playfield. This indication is consistent with the Specification’s disclosure that “the game world corresponds to an actual area of the physical world (such as the planet Earth or New York City).” Ex. 1001, 11:12–14. Thus, in one disclosed embodiment, the physical playfield is the entire (unbounded) world. We are persuaded that the Specification’s descriptions of various embodiments with defined playfields and undefined playfields support construing the scope of a “physical playfield” as encompassing defined boundaries, or a “bounded” playfield, as well as a “physical playfield” with undefined boundaries, or an “unbounded” playfield. Limiting the claim term to only “bounded” play spaces would read out broader embodiments from the claim scope. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Even if we were to accept Patent Owner’s unsupported contention that the location of Jaszlics’s image processor is outside of the display device, this would result in only two identified, predictable locations of the image processor. The image processor would either be located outside of the display device or inside of the display device. We are persuaded that substituting Rallison’s location of inside the display device instead of outside the display device provides sufficient reason to combine the teachings of Jaszlics and Rallison. See Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (reversing the Board’s determination of lack of motivation “because Okubo’s terminal-side plotting and Konishi’s server-side plotting were both well known in the art, and were the only two identified, predictable solutions for transmitting a map and plotting locations, it would have been obvious to substitute server-side plotting for terminal-side plotting in a combination of Okubo and Konishi”) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,179,277 - PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00738 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 3, and 6–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized by statute “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the record before us, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1, 3, and 6–8 of the ’448 patent. Accordingly, we institute the requested inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location information (such as GPS information associated with a user’s physical location), and in designing and/or developing computer systems/software involving graphical virtual and/or augmented reality. A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with some 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), includes revisions to Section 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the challenged claims issued from an application claiming the benefit of the filing date of an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply pre-AIA law. 2 U.S. Patent No. 6,166,744 issued Dec. 20, 2000 (Ex. 1003). 3 Int’l Patent Appl. Pub. No. WO 2003/107039 A2 published Dec. 24, 2003 (Ex. 1008). 4 U.S. Appl. Pub. No. 2002/0163486 Al published Nov. 7, 2002 (Ex. 1009) 5 U.S. Patent No. 6,361,438 B1 issued Mar. 26, 2002 (Ex. 1006). 6 U.S. Appl. Pub. No. 2004/0002843 A1 published Jan. 1, 2004) (Ex. 1007). combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience. (EX1002, ¶¶21-25.) Pet. 5. Patent Owner at this stage does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. As Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” The Specification’s discussions of “playfield” cited by Patent Owner use non-limiting language such as “for example” and “may” in describing the playfield. Ex. 1001, 2:32–36, 2:55–61, 3:14–16, 5:63–65, 6:30–32, 8:31–45, 9:4–9, 19:60–20:22, 22:5–6. The disclosed examples of “a physical playfield” include “the physical world, a physical environment, or a defined physical playfield” (Ex. 1001, 1:56–58), which indicates that the applicant intended “a physical playfield” as claimed to encompass more than a defined or “bounded” physical playfield. This indication is consistent with the Specification’s disclosure that “the game world corresponds to an actual area of the physical world (such as the planet Earth or New York City).” Ex. 1001, 11:12–14. Thus, in one disclosed embodiment, the physical playfield is the entire (unbounded) world. We are persuaded that the Specification’s descriptions of various embodiments with defined playfields and undefined playfields support construing the scope of a “physical playfield” as encompassing defined boundaries, or a “bounded” playfield, as well as a “physical playfield” with undefined boundaries, or an “unbounded” playfield. Limiting the claim term to only “bounded” play spaces would read out broader embodiments from the claim scope. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case”).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. . . . A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness rejection. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Jaszlics discloses that the “invention relates . . . to systems for combining virtual images with real-world scenes” to provide applications such as virtual reality games (Ex. 1003, 1:13–21), which is the same field as the ’448 patent’s field of “location-based games and augmented reality systems” (Ex. 1001, Title). Turning to Sofer, the purpose of the detector of Sofer is to detect the location of objects in the user’s surrounding environment (Ex. 1008, Abstract; see id. at 2, 6, 11), which is the same purpose as the detector of the ’448 patent (Ex. 1001, 15:4–5; see id. at 1:28–31, 2:5, 16:11–18, 19:54–57). Therefore, Sofer’s detector is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of detecting the location of objects in the user’s surrounding environment. We are sufficiently persuaded that Jaszlics and Sofer are analogous to the claimed invention.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,744,448
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.