- DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00724 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 19 and 26 are unpatentable: claim 19 as anticipated by Hite and claim 26 as obvious over Hite and Baji; claims 32–36 and 41 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner, with supporting testimony from Dr. Negus, argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Hite’s system with Hill’s teaching of a high access partition in order to increase storage efficiency and address Hite’s goal of providing “advertisers with less waste and greater cost effectiveness.” Pet. 60; Ex. 1008 ¶ 599 (quoting Ex. 1009, 3:21–35; citing Ex. 1010, 4:54–57). According to Petitioner and Dr. Negus, one of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine Hite and Hill— using Hill’s “high access partition allocated for high access data storage” to “store the high access advertisement data of Hite”—to “yield[] the completely predictable and desirable result” of “decrease[d] read and write times of advertisement data stored in Hite’s” storage devices, including optional video storage device 456. Pet. 60, 65; Ex. 1008 ¶ 599; see also Tr. 107:10–15 (asserting the same). Patent Owner argues Dr. Negus’ assertion that advertising data is” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“at least one addressable and reserved storage space is a partitioned area of a hard disk drive.” Ex. 1003, 49:55–58. Petitioner refers to Hite’s disclosures that its storage devices “can be . . . disks.” Pet. 27–28 (quoting Ex. 1009, 12:6–11; citing Ex. 1009, 10:44–49). Dr. Negus testifies that “‘disks’ at the alleged time of the invention of the ’494 patent were commonly known as ‘hard disk drives.’” Ex. 1008 ¶ 680 (emphases omitted). Petitioner and Dr. Negus represent that a person of ordinary skill in the art would, therefore, “have understood Hite to disclose the use of an entire ‘disk’ (or ‘hard disk’) as the ‘Video Storage Device’” or the RD. Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 680). Petitioner, with supporting testimony from Dr. Negus, further contends that “[w]hen the entire ‘hard disk’ storage space is undivided, it is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed ‘partitioned area of a hard disk drive.’” Pet. 28; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 680, 683. We disagree. Based on Hite’s explanation that “[t]he storage devices used to implement” its system “can be . . . disks” as well as the evidence before us that “disks” or “hard disks” were known as “hard disks drives” at the relevant time, we agree with Petitioner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Hite to use an entire disk, hard disk, or hard disk drive for OVS Device 456 and for the RD. Ex. 1009, 10:44–49, 12:6–11; Ex. 1008 ¶ 680; see Ex. 3002 (MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (5th ed. 2002)), 246 (explaining, within definition of “hard disk,” that a “hard disk” is “[a]lso called: hard disk drive” and defining “hard disk drive” as “See hard disk” (emphases omitted)). We part ways with Petitioner, however, in its proffered conclusion that such an “entire,” “undivided” hard disk or hard disk drive falls within the ordinary meaning of “partitioned area of a hard disk drive.” Pet. 28; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 680, 683; see Ex. 3001, 1087 (defining “partition” as “divide into parts”). The claim language expressly requires a “partitioned area of”—not a whole, entire, or undivided—hard disk drive. Thus, we disagree that an entire hard disk or hard disk drive constitutes the “partitioned area of a hard disk drive” required by claim 32. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that Hite discloses “wherein said at least one addressable and reserved storage space is a partitioned area of a hard disk drive,” as recited in dependent claim 32. Thus, Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that dependent claim 32 is anticipated by Hite.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“e. Conclusion Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, and taking into account Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 19 is anticipated by Hite. 4. Dependent Claim 26 Claim 26 depends from independent claim 19 and recites, in relevant part, “processing circuitry configured to dynamically merge the particular advertising data with digital media content that is pre-stored in said at least one storage device.” Ex. 1003, 49:6–9. The plain claim language unambiguously and expressly requires that it is the “digital media content” that must be “pre-stored.” Yet in addressing the limitation, the Petition represents, and Dr. Negus testifies, that Hite discloses “‘particular advertising data’ that is ‘pre-stored in said at least one storage device’ (prior to the ‘dynamic merging’ with ‘digital media content’),” because commercials targeted for a display site or consumer according to CID codes are stored in the RD or video storage device. Pet. 26 (emphasis added); Ex. 1008 ¶ 646 (emphasis added). These assertions that Hite’s system pre-stores what Petitioner identifies as the “particular advertising data,” targeted commercials selected using CID codes, fail to address or show adequately that Hite discloses “digital media content that is pre-stored in said at least one storage device,” as claim 26 explicitly requires. Thus, we are unpersuaded that Hite discloses “digital media content that is pre-stored in said at least one storage device,” as recited in dependent claim 26. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that dependent claim 26 is anticipated by Hite.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proffered rationale for combining Hite with Hill is not adequately supported by the record. Specifically, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s assertion that advertising data is “high access” data is a conclusory statement that fails to “articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record” to support an obviousness determination. In re: Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d at 1380. Although Hite discusses preempting broadcast commercials with stored commercials at broadcast breaks (see Ex. 1009, 7:24–30), Petitioner does not cite any portion of Hite, or provide any evidence at all, that explains how frequently the advertising data would have been accessed. Accordingly, because Petitioner has not shown adequately that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hite and Hill to arrive at “addressable and reserved storage space for storing the particular advertising data,” as recited in independent claim 19, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 19 is obvious over Hite and Hill.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,053,494 - DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. v. Customedia Technologies, L.L.C.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00717 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 19, 23, 24, and 27 are unpatentable as anticipated by Hite or obvious over Hite; claims 16–18 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“preponderance of the evidence that the specified claims are unpatentable over the cited prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). We previously instructed Patent Owner that “any arguments for patentability not raised in the [Patent Owner Response] will be deemed waived.” Paper 10, 6; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied may be considered admitted.”).5 Additionally, the Board’s Trial Practice Guide states that the Patent Owner Response “should identify all the involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis for that belief.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). There are arguments and evidence advanced by Petitioner to support its positions, though, that Patent Owner chose not to address in either its Preliminary Response (Paper 7) or Response (Paper 22), or that was not addressed in the Decision on Institution (Paper 9). We have evaluated those unrebutted arguments and the evidence in support, and we find the Petitioner persuasively established, with sufficient evidence, the manner in which the asserted prior art teaches corresponding elements of the claims. Pet. 18–66 (citing Exs. 1008–1010) (unchallenged portions only). Based on the preponderance of the evidence before us, we conclude that the prior art identified by Petitioner describes all limitations of the reviewed claims that were not contested by the Patent Owner in either its Preliminary Response 5 For the reasons noted in our Order (Paper 43, 2–3), however, for this proceeding, we will also consider the arguments set forth in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. (Paper 7) or Response (Paper 22). In re NuVasive, 841 F.3d 966, 974 (2016). We address only the contested limitations below.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for petitioner
“correspond properly to the claimed storage device, because it is not capable of recording programming content selected by a user for later playback. PO Resp. 14. We are not persuaded by this argument because, as discussed above, we are persuaded that a proper construction of “storage device” does not require recording programming content for later playback. We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Hite’s OVS Device 456 corresponds properly to the “at least one storage device,” as recited in each of independent claims 1 and 19.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not explain sufficiently, and the cited portions of Hite do not disclose, how the method by which the progression is made from “children’s aspirin” to “children’s chewable vitamins.” Dr. Negus’s testimony is similarly unavailing, as the only cited paragraph that plausibly supports their position, paragraph 484, is conclusory and unsupported. Absent such explanation or cited disclosure, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has shown adequately that the recited “key word” is a part of the progression, as required to meet the claim. 8 At least a portion of Dr. Negus’s testimony aligns with this testimony of Dr. Kesan. Ex. 1008 ¶ 669 (“An exemplary targeting characteristic to optimize advertising format scenarios within Hite is the ‘context code’ that ‘could be appended to the commercial’s CID code’ to be ‘compared with program identification codes appended to the program signals’ such that a ‘commercial is displayed if it is in a specific channel or network or show’ as in the example of ‘skiing equipment commercials would be shown during a skiing down hill racing competition’ (emphasis added, see, for example, Ex. 1009 at 4:34–40).”. Upon review of Petitioner’s evidence and analysis, and taking into account Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that dependent claim 4 is anticipated by Hite.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableDecided for petitioner
“Essentially, Patent Owner assertions are the same as those advanced for the anticipation ground for the same claim. We agree with Patent Owner’s assertions for the same reasons as set forth above. Having said that, the assertions are misplaced, because this is an obviousness ground, and Patent Owner does not address the modification to Hite proposed by the Examiner. To that end, we are persuaded by Petitioner that it would have been obvious to code Hite’s viewer responses using keywords, as we agree that such a technique was common and well known at the time of the invention, and that it would have been an obvious design choice. Ex. 1008 ¶ 486. Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges this possibility, as they do not assert that using key words would not have been known, just that it may not have been preferable under certain circumstances. PO Resp. 53 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 92). Insofar as Patent Owner may be asserting that such a preference teaches away from a modification, we have considered it, but determine that it is outweighed by the evidence of the ubiquity of key word searches at the time of the invention. Indeed, we are unclear as to how, other than using numbers or key words, such searches could have been performed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”).” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 9,053,494 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,053,494 - Hamamatsu Corporation v. Sionyx, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 28, 2018 · IPR2016-01910 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13–18, 21, and 23–25 were held unpatentable; claims 12 and 26 were not, based on the stated anticipation and obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic 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)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how the prior art anticipates the challenged claims and how the proposed combinations of prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. We analyze the challenges presented in the Petition in accordance with the above-stated principles. slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Souri, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’591 patent “would hold a bachelor’s degree in physics, electrical engineering, or a related discipline, and have at least one year of experience working in the field of semiconductor processing or optoelectronic device design.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 32; Pet. 8. Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 7 n.2. Based on our review of the ’591 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’591 patent and cited prior art, the testimony of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s declarants, and the arguments and evidence adduced at trial, we agree with and apply Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. See Inst. Dec. 14–15.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“that it would not affect incident light.7 We agree with Petitioner that Nakashiba’s “contact surface S1 is exposed to air, which has a refractive index of about 1, and is formed on a silicon substrate, which has an index of refraction between 3.5-6.5, depending on the wavelength of light,” and “[t]hus, there will be an interaction (reflection and/or refraction) with [incident] light at the contact surface S1.” Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 30, 31); see id. at 7. We credit the testimony of Dr. Souri, who testifies as to differences in the refractive indices of air, silicon, and a finger, and that, when there is a change in refractive index between materials, there is an interaction with light. See Ex. 2012, 119:22–121:16. Dr. Souri further testifies that [W]hen light is incident upon a boundary between materials of different refractive index, both refraction and reflection occur, as is depicted in the diagram above. The fraction of incident light that is refracted, and the fraction which is reflected, may be calculated by Fresnel’s equations, using the angles of incidence and refraction given by Snell’s law. . . . [A] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these reflection and refraction effects constitute an interaction with electromagnetic radiation; and, consequently, said person would understand that the roughened surface S1 of Nakashiba satisfies the requirements of the term “interact” as used in the claims of the ’591 patent.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“a textured region interacting with electromagnetic radiation in a manner that results in an enhanced response and/or filtering of the radiation, the embodiments do not require the textured region to provide this enhanced response and/or filtering and further, do not define the term “interaction” as an enhanced response or filtering. See Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 908 (“[T]he specification does not describe the invention as limited to embodiments having pressure jackets, and none of the other reasons that have been invoked for giving claims a narrow reading are present.”). The claim language “interact with” is plainly broader than Patent Owner’s proffered construction, and the “position” limitations can be read to encompass features not described in the written description. See Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 908 (“The fact that a patent asserts that an invention achieves several objectives does not require that each of the claims be construed as limited to structures that are capable of achieving all of the objectives.”)” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 8,680,591 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,680,591 - Oracle America Inc. / Oracle Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 8, 2018 · IPR2016-01434 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–13 and 15–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 14 was not shown unpatentable because the cited personal notes were not “content contributed.”
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“While the parties use slightly different language, we are unable to discern any substantive differences between the proffered levels of skill and basic qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Dr. Papakonstantinou’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill as our own, if for no other reason then for its conciseness, with the understanding that the differences between the proffered levels of ordinary skill are limited and inconsequential in our analysis.” slip op. at 23
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“above-identified single statement in the specification, which uses permissible language such as “can be” and “does not need to be,” is sufficient to justify Patent Owner’s assertions, which for all practical purposes, is a disavowal of claim scope. See Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent a clear disavowal in the specification or the prosecution history, the patentee is entitled to the full scope of its claim language.”) We also credit the testimony of Dr. Almeroth over that of Dr. Papakonstantinou, because, among other reasons, Dr. Almeroth supports his testimony with relevant citations to the specification, while Dr. Papakonstantinou largely repeats that which is set forth in the Patent Owner Response, without further analysis. graphical fields that allow the input of administrative information without programming” are advantageous over “cumbersome programming performed in the past.” Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 44, 47. We treat this argument as subsumed within Patent Owner’s argument that the specification disparages prior art systems that require HTML programming to perform administrative tasks.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“224, 232 encompasses a “link to content.” In application, however, “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 is actually two separate components: (1) the underlying technical set of computer instructions that, upon clicking the link associated with “what is a wireless LAN?” 232, transports a user to a web page associated with “what is a wireless LAN?” 232; and (2) the words “what is a wireless LAN?” 224 itself displayed on the computer display, but separate from the technical set of computer instructions set forth in (1). In this example, (1) is “link to content, but not itself ‘content,’” however, (2) is itself “content.” More precisely, when we now consider “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 in relation to the aforementioned construction of “content” as “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” it becomes clear that “what is a wireless LAN?” 224, 232 is both “links to content” and “content.” Specifically, component (1) of “what is a wireless LAN?” 232 is “links to content,” but not “content” itself, because the underlying technical set of computer instructions is not “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” but for a computer. By contrast, component (2) of “what is a wireless LAN?” 224 is “content,” as it is clearly “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” in that the words “what is a wireless LAN?” are intended to convey information to an individual. So, as a practical matter, we discern that every disclosure of a “link to content” that includes “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals” (i.e., any information associated with a “link” that is separate from a generic indication of the “link” itself), is “content.” See also Ex. 3001, 6–16 (providing further analysis concerning construction, which we expressly incorporate herein). Accordingly, we determine that a proper construction of “content” is “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” and excluding “links to content,” but not excluding “content” associated with the “links to content.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. We are persuaded that “administrative interface” is broader than the “administrative page” mentioned in the specification, in that an “administrative interface” may encompass 9 While discussing “graphical user interface” during oral argument, Patent Owner stated that it was not disclaiming claim scope. Tr. 47:20–22 (“We’re not arguing that the claim terms have been disclaimed in some phrase.”). something other than an “administrative page.” We are also persuaded that the specification’s disclosure of a non-limiting embodiment, that of a highlyautomated and browser-based “administrative page,” does not require that a proper construction of “administrative interface” include “graphical user interface.” As admitted by Patent Owner, these pages are “example[s]” only, and, at best, merely “impl[y]” the presence of a “graphical user interface.” See PO Resp. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002, 16:39–44; Ex. 2002 ¶ 40). We are persuaded that an “implied example” does not belong in a proper construction of a claim term. Indeed, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s factual premise, concerning the above “implied example,” is flawed, as the specification’s “reference to automation and a browser provides no basis for restricting the claimed ‘administrative interface’ to a graphical user interface.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1033 ¶ 15) (Dr. Almeroth testifies that “automation of computer systems does not require a graphical user interface.”). More specifically, Dr. Almeroth identifies other automated “interfaces” in the specification, such as “a networked cash register, bar code scanner or electronic product code reader” (Ex. 1002, 13:8–15, 14:51–52) that do not require a “graphical user interface.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 14. We agree with Dr. Almeroth’s analysis of the specification. Dr. Almeroth asserts further, and we agree, again, that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would understand that that cash register could be connected to a server that is accessible only via a command line interface, and that administrators could use command-line tools . . . to group content on that server.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 14. Patent Owner cites In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149–1150 (Fed. Cir. 2012) for its finding of an implicit definition of a” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,516,177 - Department Of Justice v. Discovery Patents, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 9, 2017 · IPR2016-01041 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11, 12, 14, 16–18, and 20–31 are unpatentable over Monroe ’183; claims 15 and 19 were not shown unpatentable over Monroe ’183.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“A petition for inter partes review may be considered only if, inter alia, “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides guidance regarding factors to consider in determining whether a party is a real party in interest. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug. 14, 2012). Considerations may include whether a non-party “funds and directs and controls” an IPR petition or proceeding. Id. at 48,760. Additional relevant factors include: the non-party’s relationship with the petitioner; the non-party’s relationship to the petition itself, including the nature and/or degree of involvement in the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition. Id. Whether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding is a real party in interest to that proceeding “is a highly fact-dependent question.” Id. at 48,759. There is no “bright line test.” Id. Courts invoke the term real party in interest to describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion. Id. A non-party’s participation with a petitioner may be overt or covert, and the evidence may be direct or circumstantial, but the evidence as a whole must show that the non-party possessed effective control over the petitioner relating to the inter partes review. Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., Case IPR2013-00609, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014) (Paper 15). We have considered Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and we determine that Petitioner was not required to identify the Third Parties as real parties in interest because there is insufficient evidence that any of these companies exercised, or could exercise, control over Petitioner with respect to this proceeding. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the motion practice before the Court of Federal Claims and notification of that action to the Third Parties does not reflect otherwise. Although we acknowledge that the existence of the above-identified indemnification clauses supports Patent Owner’s argument, we are unaware of any inter partes review decision in which a real party in interest finding was based solely on evidence of an indemnification clause, and we decline to do so here.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“We decline to consider Patent Owner’s constitutional challenge as, generally, “administrative agencies do not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional enactments.” See Riggin v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 61 F.3d 1563, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1710 (TTAB 1999) (“[T]he Board has no authority . . . to declare provisions of the Trademark Act unconstitutional.”); Amanda Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2014), rev’d on other grounds, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003); but see Am. Express Co. v. Lunenfeld, Case CBM2014- 00050, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB May 22, 2015) (Paper 51) (“for the reasons articulated in Patlex [Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985)], we conclude that covered business method patent reviews, like reexamination proceedings, comply with the Seventh Amendment”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The ’980 patent states that “the term ‘secured location’ may refer to residences, commercial properties, public venues, such as hospitals and sports arenas, government facilities, military installations and any other location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.” Ex. 1003, 3:20–24. This definition is non-limiting and does not exclude a changeable area or region. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we maintain that the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’980 patent of “secured location” is “any location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Although the Specification of the ’980 patent gives examples of “response agency,” e.g., Ex. 1003, 1:41–43 (“an emergency response agency (e.g., the police department, the fire department or an emergency medical team)”), Patent Owner does not identify, and we do not find, a definition in the specification limiting “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments. Patent Owner also does not identify, and we do not find, anything in the entire disclosure of the ’980 patent requiring a “response agency” to be distinct from the “surveillance system infrastructure.” Accordingly, we decline to limit “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments, or construe it to be distinct from surveillance system infrastructure.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 7,323,980 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,323,980 - Qualcomm Incorporated v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00623 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8–12, 14–20, 23–27, and 29–31 are unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds; claims 13 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
“of a “clear” channel is “a channel that is not already in use by a non-frequency hopping communications system” and that the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “occupied” channel is “a channel that already is in use by a non-frequency hopping communications system.”” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“would have a B.S. degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 3-5 years of academic or industry experience in the wireless communications field.” E.g., 620 Pet. 11 (citing 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–13); see 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 14. Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Melendez,7 adopt this assessment for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 5–6; Ex. 2001 ¶ 29. We note that both Petitioner’s declarant and Patent Owner’s declarant exceed this assessment (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–8; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 10–16) and are competent to testify regarding the lower assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and, for purposes of this Final Written Decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt this assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Id. Thus, Petitioner argues that, because multiple tests must be applied to determine the continued presence of interference regardless of the source, limiting “occupied” to NFH communications systems is overly narrow. Nevertheless, the words chosen by the patentee to describe its invention have significance. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is the applicants’ burden to precisely define the invention, not the PTO’s.”). As noted above, “occupied” is only used in the Specification with respect to NFH communications systems, and neither claims 4 and 19 nor their base claims nor the intervening claims specify a single or multiple tests. Therefore, we find Petitioner’s arguments, which attempt to incorporate the teachings of “bad” and “good” channels from elsewhere in the Specification into the interpretation of these claim limitations, unpersuasive. See Intervet America, Inc. v. Kee-Vet Laboratories, Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.’”); In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“4. Other Claim Terms For purposes of this Decision, we discern no other claim terms that require express interpretation. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting to allow us to construe the terms “occupied” and “clear,” we relied less on Dr. Ding’s testimony regarding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand these terms. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’”). Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see PO Resp. 7.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 8,873,500 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,873,500 - Qualcomm IncorporatedSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00620 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8–12, 14–20, 23–27, and 29–31 are unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds; claims 13 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“F. Assessment of Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 3-5 years of academic or industry experience in the wireless communications field.” E.g., 620 Pet. 11 (citing 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–13); see 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 14. Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Melendez,7 adopt this assessment for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 5–6; Ex. 2001 ¶ 29. We note that both Petitioner’s declarant and Patent Owner’s declarant exceed this assessment (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–8; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 10–16) and are competent to testify regarding the lower assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and, for purposes of this Final Written Decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt this assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. “hopping sequence” (Claims 1, 14, 16, and 29 and others) In the institution decisions, we determined that, in light of the Specification of the ’500 patent, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “hopping sequence” is “the order in which the communications network hops among the set of frequencies.” E.g., 620 Dec. on Inst. 10–11 (citing 620 Pet. 11–12). Patent Owner does not contest this construction. PO Resp. 6–7. For the reasons set forth in the Decision on Institution in Case IPR2016-00620, we remain persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “hopping sequence.”” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner also provides a persuasive rationale for combining the teachings of Dabak and Kockmann. Id. at 39–40. Petitioner asserts that they are both references directed to the same problem, namely, “to communication performance improvements through adapted frequency hopping to avoid channels disturbed by interference.” Id. at 40 (citing Dabak, Abstract; Kockmann, 2:49–3:20; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 113). In addition, according to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify the teachings of Dabak regarding the MSD technique in view of the teachings of Kockmann “to utilize multiple channels to communicate with the slave device over the subset of communication channels according to an adapted hopping sequence” in order to accomplish the shared goals of these references. Id. at 40 (citing 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 113); see In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already generally known can provide the motivation to optimize variables such as the percentage of a known polymer for use in a known device.”). According to Petitioner, the combination of these teachings “is a simple use of known teachings to yield predictable results.” Id. (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”)). Based on our review of Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner demonstrates that combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann teach or suggest all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 16 and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Dabak and Kockmann to achieve the methods of claim 1 and the devices of claim 16. See 620 Pet. 17–20, 33–35, 38–40, 48–49. We conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 1 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann. Moreover, because Petitioner’s arguments for the obviousness of independent claim 16 over Dabak and Kockmann rely on the arguments and evidence presented with respect to independent claim 1, we also conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that independent claim 16 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann, as well as on its related challenges to dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 27, and 29–31. See 620 Pet. 25–26, 40 (claim 2; citing Dabak, 7:57–60, 8:1–2, Fig. 1; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 51, 52), 26–27, 40 (claim 3; citing Dabak, 2:39–40, 3:1–5, 3:50–54, 3:60–62; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54, 55), 27–28, 42 (claim 5; citing Dabak, 7:57–67; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 57), 28, 44 (claim 8; citing Dabak, 2:58–59; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 59), 44–47 (claim 9; citing Kockmann, 7:44–47, 8:39–48; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 136, 137), 31, 47 (claim 12; citing Dabak, Fig. 3B; 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 65), 31–32, 47 (claim 14; citing 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 69–75, 152), 32–33, 48 (claim 15; citing Dabak, 3:1–5, 7:57–” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner contends, however, that the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann fail to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 4. In particular, Patent Owner contends that, “[a]s described in Kockmann, ‘disturbed’ does not in fact mean ‘occupied,’ but rather it only means that ‘[a] disturbed carrier frequency is thus a carrier frequency onto which a signal is modulated that exceeds a specific threshold.’” PO Resp. 14 (citing Kockmann, 6:43–49). Patent Owner contends that determining whether a channel is “occupied” “requires analysis beyond the measurements called for by Kockmann (i.e.[,] determining more than just the mere presence of a modulated signal ‘that exceeds a specific threshold,’ but rather whether its source was FH or NFH).” Id. at 15; see 620 Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 33–37. Initially, Petitioner again states that Kockmann discloses that “[d]isturbance thereby means that either a disturbance in the actual sense or an occupancy by some other transmitter is present.” Kockmann, 6:41–43 (emphasis added). Patent Owner contends, however, “that a channel ‘occupied’ by an NFH system and a channel ‘disturbed’ by another transmitter are somehow different because an occupancy determination requires additional ‘analysis.’” Reply 10. Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner does not show where the claims recite one type of analysis or prohibit another. Id. Thus, we find that the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 4. Petitioner’s arguments with respect to claim 4 apply equally to claim 19. Based on our review of the arguments and evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4 and 19 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Dabak and Kockmann.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 8,873,500 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,873,500 - Zepp Labs, Inc. v. Blast Motion, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00676 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7–9, and 12–15 were held unpatentable as obvious; claims 5 and 6 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed database limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“to the ’855 patent is “a person with a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field with two to three years of experience working with data acquisition systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). According to Petitioner, “[w]ith more education, such as additional graduate degrees and/or study, less experience is needed to attain the ordinary level of skill.” Id.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“The Supreme Court has made clear that “[t]hroughout this Court’s engagement with the question of obviousness, our cases have set forth an expansive and flexible approach inconsistent with the way the Court of Appeals applied its TSM test here.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. In direct contrast, Patent Owner’s assertions of law, by use of the terms “unnecessary” and “unneeded,” harkens back to the rigid TSM test, which the Supreme Court held explicitly as being incorrect. The Supreme Court further opined as follows: Neither the enactment of § 103 nor the analysis in [Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)] disturbed this Court’s earlier instructions concerning the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art. For over a half century, the Court has held that a “patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions . . . obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men.” Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162 (1950). This is a principal reason for declining to allow patents for what is obvious. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Id. at 415–416. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions of law, there is no use of terms similar to “unnecessary,” “unneeded,” or even “goals” in the obviousness analysis. Instead, the Supreme Court’s inquiry is straightforward: (1) if the elements are found in the prior art, and (2) if the combination results in “no change in respective function” and “does no more than yield predictable results,” i.e., a predictable reason to combine for a predictable advantage, then the resulting combination is “likely to be obvious.” Id.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts further that “Mahajan teaches such a person of skill in the art not to include a memory, as its real-time data transmission system is described as preferable to a memory-based system such as Lee’s.” PO Resp. 28 (emphasis omitted). We disagree. While Mahajan does disclose such a general preference in one embodiment, we find that it, at the same time, expressly acknowledges the possibility of the alternative. Ex. 1005 ¶ 42 (“The hardware device need not have an on-board memory for storing the orientation and position information.”). See, e.g., Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (non-preferred embodiments can be the basis for an obviousness analysis). Specifically, we find that the words “need not” actually conveys the following meaning in the context of the Mahajan: “may, but need not.” This understanding is further underscored by the fact that Mahajan expressly incorporates-by-reference Lee, and, in describing Lee, asserts the following: “A distinctive feature of this instrumented golf club is the use of a data storage memory device located within the golf club that eliminates the need for radio transmission hardware.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 6. Indeed, not only does Mahajan acknowledge that an alternative of adding memory was known, it even identifies an advantage for that alternative. The argument that such an advantage may be allegedly contrary to the goals of Mahajan is unpersuasive, for the reasons set forth above. Finally, insofar as Patent Owner is asserting that Mahajan teaches away from the proffered modification, we disagree for the same reasons. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (a reference that “merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into” the claimed invention does not teach away).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We determine that Petitioner’s evidence and argument is insufficient to demonstrate that Mahajan teaches the limitation of claim 5. As an initial matter, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently how Mahajan’s teaching of storing information informs a skilled artisan that that storage is a “database,” as required by claim 5. See Pet. 32–33; Pet. Reply 14–15. Petitioner does not adequately explain why a storage medium, such a hard drive or a server, sufficiently equates with a “database.” Indeed, in response to the question— “[s]o Mahajan's disclosure of a remote server is not the same thing as disclosing a remote database, correct?”—Dr. Nesbitt testified, “[n]ot exclusively.” Ex. 2011, 123:8–12; see id. at 120:19–21. Dr. Nesbitt further testified that, [a] server would be more of a hardware device, where a database would be more of a software. It would be a place where the data is actually stored within a remote computer or remote server. So it’s the hardware versus what’s in the hardware is the distinction between the two. Id. at 122:17–23; see Ex. 2001 ¶ 63 (Patent Owner’s expert opining that “[d]isclosure of sending data to remote server for storage, without more, is insufficient to convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the server contains a database.”). The ’855 patent also distinguishes between a “remote database” and a “remote server.” See Ex. 1001, 8:33–34 57 (“[t]he data uploaded to the Internet, i.e., a remote database or remote server or memory remote to the system”); id. at 26:48–51. At oral argument,” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 8,905,855 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,905,855 - Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00303 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 are unpatentable as obvious over Huey and ATM UNI; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“PO Mot. 13–14. A motion to exclude is the wrong vehicle to challenge public availability, which is a substantive issue that goes to the sufficiency of the evidence, not to admissibility at issue here. FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, slip. op., Paper 113 at 4 (PTAB September 3, 2015) (“A motion to exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence.”); see also 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“A motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). For the reasons above, we do not exclude Exhibit 1028.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). To qualify as a prior art printed publication, the reference must have been disseminated or otherwise made accessible to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter to which the document relates prior to the critical date. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding both hair brush art and toothbrush art to be analogous to a claim to a hair brush) (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). “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.” Id. (citations omitted). The scope of the field of endeavor is a factual determination based on the scope of the application's written description and claims. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326. slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“There are two problems with Petitioner’s assertion. First, Petitioner has not shown a reason to combine Kogge with Huey and the ATM UNI Specification. Second, to the extent this reference is used to show the scope and content of the art at the time of the invention, Kogge makes it clear that parallelism and pipelining are different concepts that are “generally discernably different in their general approach.” Ex. 1033, 1. Petitioner has not explained how Kogge shows that putting packets through the pipeline without waiting for the previous packet to finish would be considered operating in parallel given that this reference distinguishes parallel operation from pipeline operation. Petitioner argued at the oral hearing that Patent Owner was advocating “a particular flavor of parallelism, as opposed to what’s understood by normal parallel pipelining.” Tr. 41:6–14. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant has explained what “normal parallel pipelining” is or what the basis is for us to define “normal parallel pipelining.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Huey to meet the limitation of performing at least two of said steps “in parallel using a pipeline.”” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,377,577 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,377,577 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rabinovich; Petitioner did not prove claims 1–15 obvious over Rabinovich.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 19–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 21. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating object xs if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, i.e., a non-zero value. PO Resp. 34; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Rabinovich object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independently of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Rabinovich” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“pieces” Claim 1 recites “each file including a plurality of individual pieces, the pieces containing parts of the files.” Ex. 1002, 25:67–26:1. The other independent claims recite limitations commensurate in scope. Neither party proposes explicitly a construction of the term “piece.” Petitioner argues that “files are inherently composed of pieces in the form of bits that make up bytes, the bytes themselves being pieces of the file.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner argues that construing “piece” to cover “bits and bytes” of a file “would read out the ‘pieces’ limitation from the claim entirely” (PO Resp. at 29–30) and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the ‘pieces’ limitation of the claim to include bits and bytes” (id. at 30). The claims themselves define “piece” by requiring that a “file” have a “plurality of individual pieces,” but do not establish a lower bound—i.e., a minimum number of bits or bytes—to qualify as a “piece.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the ’680 patent for its contention that “piece” or “pieces” excludes a byte or bytes of a file, relying instead solely on the testimony of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39). We are not persuaded by Dr. Jacobs’s conclusory testimony. Because “piece” and “pieces” are limited by the claims only to being a subset of a file and because a byte or collection of bytes of a file is a subset of that file, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “piece” and “pieces” in light of the Specification of the ’680 patent encompasses a byte or bytes. slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 7,904,680 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,904,680
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.