• Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00331 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11, 14–25, and 28–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Beser and RFC 2401.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner’s contentions are not persuasive. Patent Owner fails to explain sufficiently why the notion of “performing an additional evaluation” constitutes an implicit part of the claimed intercept clause. Addressing similar arguments by Patent Owner, a Board panel made a similar determination in the ’237 FWD relied upon by Petitioner. ’237 FWD 11 (“the record show[s] that the additional functionality urged by Patent Owner should not be imported into the intercepting phrase”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Under this standard, absent any special definitions, claim terms or phrases are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For the purposes of this Decision, only the claim terms or clauses below need express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We find Dr. Tamassia’s testimony as to public accessibility of RFCs in general to be credible, especially given the independent support of RFC 2026 (Ex. 1036), the contents of which Patent Owner does not challenge.7 As part of routine discovery, see 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii), Patent Owner had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Tamassia, but does not point us to any discussion of this issue. Moreover, RFC 2401’s contents are consistent with the publication process described by RFC 2026 and Dr. Tamassia, including the inclusion of a date “November 1998” on the top right corner of the first page of the document. Ex. 1008, 1. In addition, this document—a request for suggestions and improvements for an Internet standards protocol, 7 As addressed below, Patent Owner objects and moves to dismiss a number of Exhibits based on hearsay and relevancy. See Paper 20 (Motion to Exclude). having no indication of being a mere draft or internal paper—is precisely the type of document whose very purpose is public disclosure, including on the Internet. Both of the magazine articles, Exhibits 1064 and 1065, further corroborate the indicia of availability on the face of RFC 2401, although they are not necessary to our finding of public accessibility. We do not rely on the testimony of Sandy Ginoza, Exhibits 1060 and 1063, which Patent Owner seeks to exclude as discussed further below.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not articulate a persuasive reason for giving Dr. Tamassia’s declaration, as a whole, little or no weight in our analysis. We agree with Petitioner that experts are not required to opine on every relevant factual and legal issue in order to be accorded substantial weight. The cases upon which Patent Owner relies do not show otherwise. For example, Patent Owner cites Schumer v. Laboratory Computer Systems, Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002), for the proposition that “[expert] testimony . . . ‘must identify each claim element, state the witnesses’ interpretation of the claim element, and explain in detail how each claim element is disclosed in the prior art reference.’” PO Resp. 52–53. Patent Owner’s quotation, however, mischaracterizes Schumer by omitting introductory words necessary to the meaning of the quoted sentence. In its entirety, the quoted portion of Schumer states the following: Typically, testimony concerning anticipation must be testimony from one skilled in the art and must identify each claim element, state the witnesses’ interpretation of the claim element, and explain in detail how each claim element is disclosed in the prior art reference. The testimony is insufficient if it is merely conclusory. Schumer, 308 F.3d at 1315–16. The Federal Circuit then adds that it is not the task of the courts to “attempt to interpret confusing or general testimony to determine whether a case of invalidity has been made out” and “if the testimony relates to prior invention and is from an interested party, as here, it must be corroborated.” Id. at 1316. So, instead of laying out a specific, required format for the content of all testimony regarding invalidity, as asserted by Patent Owner, this portion of Schumer confirms the unremarkable proposition that conclusory, overly general, confusing, and self-interested testimony should not be relied upon. Id.; see also Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC, 381 F.3d 1142, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“General and conclusory testimony, such as that provided by Dr. Kazmer in this case, does not suffice as substantial evidence of invalidity.”). Patent Owner does not show that the whole of Dr. Tamassia’s testimony suffers from any of these failings. Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), the preponderance of the evidence standard governs in determining whether Petitioner establishes unpatentability. We exercise discretion to determine the appropriate weight to accord the evidence presented, including expert opinions, based on the underlying facts supporting the opinion. We accord relevant portions of Dr. Tamassia’s testimony the appropriate weight based on that particular testimony and supporting evidence.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,504,696 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,504,696
• Coalition For Affordable Drugs Viii, LLC v. The Trustees Of The University Of PennsylvaniaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01836 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the prior art did not establish a reasonable expectation of success using lomitapide in the claimed dosing regimen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As to reasonable expectation of success, we agree with Patent Owner that the ordinary artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success of combining Pink Sheet with Chang to arrive at the claimed invention. To the extent that Petitioner relies on our Institution Decision, we note that decision was based on the evidence of record at that time. The evidence advanced by Patent Owner during trial, discussed herein, however, tips the scale in favor of a finding different from that set forth in our Institution Decision. slip op. at 36

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “As to Exhibit 1052, which is the Deposition Transcript of S. David Kimball, and which Patent Owner acknowledges that Petitioner cites in its Reply, Patent Owner argues that it timely objected to the exhibit as an improper duplicate of Exhibit 2304. Mot. Exclude 7. Petitioner responds that Exhibits 2304 and 1052 are the transcripts of Petitioner’s expert. Opp. Mot. Exclude 4. Although acknowledging that the party taking the deposition normally files the transcript, Petitioner asserts that its Reply cites to Ex. 1056, and Patent Owner does not cite to either exhibit. Id. Patent Owner replies that Exhibit 2304 also contains Dr. Kimball’s signed errata sheet and is, thus, the more complete of the two documents. Reply Mot. Exclude. 3. Patent Owner asserts that the citations in Petitioner’s Reply can be updated to reflect the correct exhibit number, if necessary. Id. Given the posture of this proceeding, that is, it is at final written decision, and as Patent Owner notes, the two documents are not exact duplicates, we decline to exclude Ex. 1056, but will allow both Exhibit 1056 and 2034 to remain in the record.” slip op. at 44

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached

    “the unrebutted evidence of commercial success further supports the patentability of the challenged claims. Looking at the entire record before us, we conclude that Petitioner has not meet its burden to establish unpatentability of challenged claims 1‒8 by a preponderance of the evidence over the combination of Pink Sheet and Chang. E. Motion to Amend As discussed above, because we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated the obviousness of the claims by a preponderance of the evidence, we need not reach the merits of Patent Owner’s contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 24). We, thus, dismiss the motion a moot.” slip op. at 44

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “biotechnology and medical device companies.” Id. The press release does not even mention Dr. Stein. Thus, there is nothing in the press release suggesting that the ordinary artisan in the cardiovascular/cardiac field, or interested in MTP inhibitors, should attend the presentation. We, therefore, decline to credit Dr. Mayersohn’s testimony that “[a]person of ordinary skill in the art interested in the development of MTP inhibitors could apparently have attended the meeting or accessed the presentation itself via webcast or on the PPD website shortly thereafter” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 25 (citing the PPD Press Release)), as there was nothing in the press release discussing MTP inhibitors. That finding informs our analysis of the factors set forth in Klopfenstein. Thus, although the ordinary artisan may have been able to copy the presentation, and although there may have been an expectation that the materials could be copied, Petitioner does not provide any evidence establishing that the target audience would have been an ordinary artisan in the relevant field.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,932,268 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,932,268
• Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2016 · IPR2015-00195 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 14, 16–21, 25, 27, 29, and 32–36 are unpatentable as obvious over either of two combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s new arguments and evidence do not persuasively demonstrate that the machines purchased as lines 1–6/7 were built to Petitioner’s specification, nor has Patent Owner demonstrated persuasively that the purchase agreements otherwise created privity between GEA and Petitioner. Even if the agreements for lines 1–6/7 were similar to the Line 8 Agreement as Patent Owner contends, we examined the relationship created by the Line 8 Agreement in detail, and determined that Petitioner and GEA were not privies. See Inst. Dec. 6–17. Given this, Patent Owner has added nothing new of significance since our Institution Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “with the specification does not limit the claimed “sterilant concentration levels” to only airborne concentrations. We recognize that the specification, in one instance, refers to zones with “different concentration levels of gas laden sterilant (e.g., hydrogen peroxide in air).” Ex. 1001, 9:51–53. The specification, however, refers elsewhere to the “residual concentration” of H2O2, measured in terms of ppm. Id. at 12:46–47 (“The hot sterile air knives 208 also remove the hydrogen peroxide from the lids 200 so that the residual concentration of hydrogen peroxide is less than 0.5 PPM.”) (emphasis added); see also id. at 11:15–17 (“After bottle 12 has dried, the residual hydrogen peroxide remaining on the bottle 12 surface is less than 0.5 PPM.”) (emphasis added). Patent Owner acknowledges that “[o]ther discussions of ppm within the specification are in the context of residual sterilant on the bottle,” which is measured in accordance with the FDA Regulations (21 C.F.R § 178.1005(d) (Ex. 1013)) as the concentration in distilled water, but nonetheless asserts that “[t]his is consistent with the definition of ‘sterilant concentration’ in the context of the claim [as] parts of sterilant per million parts of carrier gas.” PO Resp. 6. However, insofar as it is undisputed that “residual” sterilant concentrations on the bottle surface are disclosed in the specification and encompassed by the claim scope, Patent Owner does not explain why the skilled artisan would have understood such a concentration would be measured as parts of sterilant per million parts of carrier gas (i.e., airborne) as opposed to parts of sterilant per million parts of distilled water in accordance with the FDA Regulations. See Ex. 1013, 326 (“No use of hydrogen peroxide solution in the sterilization of food packaging material shall be considered to be in compliance if more than 0.5 part per million of hydrogen peroxide can be determined in distilled water packaged under production conditions.”). In short, neither the claims nor the specification limit how or where within “the plurality of zones” the sterilant concentration levels should be assessed in order to determine whether the 5 to 1 ratio is satisfied. As such, we find no basis to limit the claimed sterilant concentration levels to only airborne concentrations.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “14 Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would possess “an undergraduate scientific or engineering degree in a relevant field (such as microbiology or mechanical, packaging, process, or food engineering), at least five years of experience in an aseptic packaging and/or processing field (or a graduate degree conferring similar expertise), and an understanding of the relevant principles of microbiology and food science and technology.” Pet. 12; Ex. 1004, ¶ 12. Patent Owner has not contested that definition in its Patent Owner Response, but its expert Dr. Sharon asserts that Petitioner’s definition is only partially correct insofar as it does not recognize that the POSITA could have a mechanical engineering Patent Owner’s arguments are directed primarily to the sterilant concentration ratio requirement recited in each of the challenged independent claims 1, 4, 17, and 33. Specifically, the challenged claims all require that the sterilant concentration levels in the plurality of zones within the sterilization tunnel “are maintained at a ratio of at least about 5 to 1.” Accordingly, we focus on that limitation, and treat the claims together for purpose of our analysis. 1. Scholle in view of Chambers, the FDA Regulations, Biewendt, Kelbrick, Elliott, Akai, and Kodera Petitioner asserts that, using partitions and pressure differentials, the apparatus of Scholle (Ex. 1004) is configured to prevent the H2O2 sterilant from migrating from the sterilizing compartment to the drying and filling compartments, and, thus, the sterilant concentration in the sterilization compartment of Scholle is necessarily different from the concentration in the drying and filling compartments. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 55; Ex. 1005, 6:36–41). Petitioner also points to Scholle’s teaching of using a 30% solution of H2O2 in water (i.e., 300,000 ppm) as a sterilant (id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 56; Ex. 1005, 5:18–22)), and asserts that the skilled artisan “would understand that to ensure consistent sterilization and residual peroxide levels, the concentration of applied sterilant must necessarily be ‘maintained.’” Id. degree. Ex. 2056, ¶ 12. We note, however, that Petitioner has included mechanical engineering as a “relevant field” within its definition. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art in our analysis.” slip op. at 19

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

    “A preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to optimize the sterilant concentration levels within the different “zones” (i.e., compartments) of Scholle’s apparatus in such a manner. Several features of Scholle’s apparatus facilitate such an optimization. First, a 30-percent solution of H2O2 in water is atomized and continuously sprayed into the spraying compartment during operation. Ex. 1005, 5:18–26, 45–49. Second, the spraying zone is separated from other compartments by a partition with a narrow opening designed “to reduce the amount of [H2O2] mist passing through the opening.” Id. at 6:12-15. Third, in the drying compartment, the H2O2 is “evaporated” and vented out of the sterile tunnel. Id. at 6:33-36, 44- 55. And finally, the sterile air maintains a positive pressure in the filling and drying compartments, thus reducing any tendency of the H2O2 mist in the spray compartment to migrate through the narrow opening into those other compartments. Id. at 5:36–43, 6:36-41. Although the parties dispute the particular concentration of H2O2 that exists in the sterilization tunnel after it is sprayed, there is no dispute that the spraying compartment in Scholle’s apparatus will have a higher sterilant concentration than the filling compartment. Indeed, even if airborne concentration levels were to be considered, Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledged during oral argument that “there is going to be more sterilant in the air in the spray zone than in the fill zone.” Tr. 122:12–14; see also Ex. 1035, 122:21–123:3 (Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Sharon conceding that the airborne concentration is lower in the fill zone than in the spray zone). Furthermore, we find that the concentration of the 30% solution of H2O2 will remain close to 300,000 ppm in the liquid phase at some point after it is sprayed into the spraying compartment. Scholle discloses that the spray heads atomize the H2O2 solution into a “fine mist or fog,” which coats the exterior of the containers to kill microorganisms. Ex. 1005, 5:22–23, 8:8–13. Although Dr. Sharon asserts that the skilled artisan “would be motivated to use as little sterilant in the sterilization zone as necessary to get the job done” (Ex. 2056, ¶24), he nonetheless acknowledged that, after condensation, the concentration of liquid H2O2 that coats the containers is “somewhere in the neighborhood” of 30%, or 300,000 ppm. Ex. 1035, Tr. 105:17–106:15. Here, we also credit Dr. Heldman’s testimony who stated that although the process of atomizing H2O2 may “result in varying concentrations,” the skilled artisan nonetheless “would understand that to ensure consistent sterilization and residual peroxide levels, the concentration of applied sterilant must necessarily be ‘maintained.’” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 51, 56.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,475,435 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,475,435
• Tiffany And Company v. Lazare Kaplan International, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2016 · IPR2015-00024 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 7 are unpatentable as obvious over Fine Diamonds with the ILR Article and over Gresser with the ILR Article.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “motion, lasers, and optics.” Ex. 1003 (“Trumper Declaration”) ¶ 17. Patent Owner and its declarant, Dr. Bokor, adopted the level of ordinary skill in the art advanced by Dr. Trumper. PO Resp. 43–44 and n.4; Ex. 2005 (“Bokor Declaration”) ¶ 22. For purposes of this decision, we credit the testimony provided by the declarants for both parties and hold that one of skill in the art would possess at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical, electrical, manufacturing, or optical engineering, plus a few years of experience in the design and control of machines involving precision motion, lasers, and optics. 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 7

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

    “For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 7 are unpatentable under either of the proposed constructions of the “controlling” limitations. Accordingly, we determine that it is unnecessary to resolve the parties’ dispute over the term “controlling.” See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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)). We provide below an analysis of the challenged claims under both constructions.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “patterning and ablations of diamonds with a UV laser source. Ex. 1009, 2. The ILR Article depicts a computer in Figure 2, and refers to the “[i]ntegration of a computer into the direct-write system.” Id. at 3. The ILR Article further discloses that “[v]ideo images generated by the viewing system can be digitized and processed to derive information used for” various “operations that make the laser tool easier and faster to use.” Id. We credit the testimony of Dr. Trumper that “the ILR Article makes clear that the computer digitizes and processes the optical images of a gemstone, and the automated feedback derived from the images is used for controlling the directing of the focused laser energy,” as it is consistent with the ILR Article’s disclosure of integrating a computer into the diamond ablation system. Ex. 1003 ¶ 56. Thus, despite the fact that the ILR Article does not expressly state that the computer is used to digitize and process the video images, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that integrating the computer into the direct write system would include using the computer (shown in Fig. 2) to digitize the video images generated by the viewing system and process them to conduct the various operations that make the laser tool easier to use. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Furthermore, as noted above, the ILR Article teaches that “[c]omputer control of work surfaces allows direct production of CAD-generated shapes” on diamond surfaces. Ex. 1009, 2. Petitioner contends, and Patent Owner does not contest, that the CAD/CAM programs correspond to the required “marking instructions.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1009, 2); Ex. 1003 ¶ 56 (Dr. Trumper stating “marking instructions (e.g., motion programming of the CAD/CAM program)”). Additionally, the ILR Article discloses that the “CAD/CAM interface . . . allows electronic control of processing speed, exposure parameters, and other features” of the laser tool that “simplifies set-up [and] accelerates process development.” Ex. 1009, 3. As Petitioner points out, the next sentence in the very same paragraph discusses digitizing and processing the video images. Reply 13. In view of this, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art, reviewing the ILR Article, would have understood the ILR Article to disclose or suggest using the computer to control and operate the laser tool to generate shapes based on a combination of two inputs, the CAD/CAM programs (i.e., “marking instructions”) and images fed back to the computer and digitized therein (i.e., electronic image information), which “simplif[y] set-up [and] accelerate[] process development” and “make the laser tool easier to use.”2 Ex. 1009, 3; Reply 13; Ex. 1003 ¶ 55.” slip op. at 19

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

    “contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the ILR Article discloses or suggests that images are fed back to a processor and combined with marking instructions for, at the very least, setting up the laser inscription machine. Thus, although Patent Owner also argues that its proposed construction of the controlling limitations “distinguishes over systems that use gemstone images for setup—independent of ‘marking instructions’” (PO Resp. 29 (emphasis added)), the ILR Article discloses or suggests using images for set up in combination with marking instructions. Moreover, as Patent Owner points out, the Federal Circuit stated that the “controlling” limitations include “control based on . . . feedback derived from optical images of a gemstone, before or during the laser burn process.” Ex. 1006, 14 (emphasis added); PO Resp. 31–32. We note that Patent Owner argues that its proposed construction is consistent with the 2010 Federal Circuit opinion. PO Resp. 29–32. For all of the reasons discussed above, we determine that the ILR Article discloses or suggests the “controlling” limitations of claims 1 and 7. Petitioner has identified sufficiently where the additional limitations of claims 1 and 7 are present in Fine Diamonds and the ILR Article, and Patent Owner does not argue otherwise. We, therefore, conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Fine Diamonds and the ILR article disclose or suggest all elements of claims 1 and 7.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,476,351 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,476,351
• EMC Corporation v. Acqis LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2014-01462 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 54 and 56–61 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish that the cited references rendered the claimed PCI transaction communication obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction in the Decision on Institution. The evidence indicates that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” refers to a particular industry standard, not just any communication with an interconnected peripheral component. Industry literature and dictionaries use the proper noun “Peripheral Component Interconnect” and the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry specification for a local bus. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 1; Ex. 2002, 6–7; Ex. 2003, 7–8. The challenged claims recite “Peripheral Component Interconnect” as a proper noun and abbreviate it as “PCI,” indicating that the challenged claims use those terms consistent with the understood industry meaning. Ex. 1001, col. 43, ll. 48–49, col. 44, l. 6; see Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The written description similarly uses the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry standard, and uses the common noun “peripheral bus” to refer to a generic peripheral bus. Compare Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 31–33 (“The present invention . . . interface[s] two PCI or PCI-like buses”), with id. at col. 10, ll. 53–55 (“Additionally, the peripheral controller is coupled to a clock control logic, a configuration signal, and a peripheral bus.”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 6

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

    “obvious over Horst and LVDS Owner’s Manual; claims 56 and 59 would have been obvious over Horst, LVDS Owner’s Manual, and Pocrass; and claim 58 would have been obvious over Horst, LVDS Owner’s Manual, and Deters. Pet. 58–59. A claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of 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 non-obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We have considered the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, and we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 54 and 56–61 would have been obvious over the cited references.” slip op. at 7

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “Owner argues that paragraphs 10–24 and 31–37 of Exhibit 1031 should be excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial because Petitioner relies on those paragraphs to support improper arguments in the Reply. PO Mot. 8. Petitioner argues in the Reply that the TNet transaction in Horst includes PCI address bits, and that claim 54 only requires communicating two bits of a PCI bus transaction. PO Mot. 1. Patent Owner contends that both arguments exceed the scope of a proper reply, as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), and that the portions of Exhibit 1031 that Petitioner relies upon to support those arguments should be excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial. PO Mot. 2–4, 6, 7. Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. Patent Owner argues in the Response that the TNet transaction in Horst does not include PCI address bits. PO Resp. 27–29. As such, Petitioner’s argument in the Reply that the TNet transaction includes PCI address bits is responsive to an argument raised in the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (generally permitting a reply to respond to arguments raised in a response). Patent Owner also argues in the Response that claim 54 requires communicating a 32-bit PCI address. PO Resp. 8–11. As such, Petitioner’s argument in the Reply that claim 54 only requires communicating two bits of a PCI bus transaction is responsive to an argument raised in the Response. Because we are not persuaded that the identified arguments in the Reply are improper, the premise of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1031 fails. Therefore, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude paragraphs 10–24 and 31–37 of Exhibit 1031 is denied.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,041,873 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,041,873
• Fiserv, Inc. v. Datatreasury CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2015 · CBM2014-00088 · APJ William V Saindon · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 16, 18, 22, 25, 26, 29, 36, 38–43, 50, 51, 55, 62, and 63 are unpatentable as anticipated by Campbell; the remaining instituted claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1062–1065, filed by Petitioner on April 7, 2015, over two months after Petitioner filed its Reply and 22 days before oral hearing. PO Mot. Excl. 2–3. Petitioner characterizes its submission as “supplemental information” and “apologizes for its oversight” of the “minor procedural defect” of not seeking authorization to file a motion for supplemental information. Pet. Opp. Mot. Excl. 2. We dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude because we hereby order the expungement of Exhibits 1062–1065 for being filed without prior authorization.” slip op. at 8

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

    “before (Jack Henry CBM, Paper 17, 9–10).6 PO Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner notes that, if we do not adopt that construction, it will “abide by the Board’s decision.” Id. at 21. We decline to adopt the district court construction, a construction previously considered and not adopted, in the absence of arguments explaining why we should adopt that construction, and in the presence of a statement that Patent Owner will abide by our construction should we not choose to adopt that construction. Upon consideration of the record before us, we maintain that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “subsystem identification information” is “information that identifies a subsystem.”” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “With a full record, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position. Campbell does not state that only the image is encrypted. Instead, Campbell states that “information [is] encrypted . . . to provide security for the images transported.” Ex. 1019, 5:55–58 (emphasis added). Thus, Campbell uses the terms information and image to refer to different collections of data. Earlier in that column, Campbell also explains what it means by “information,” and it is clear that this information is not just images but rather includes “information [that] accompan[ies] those images.” Id. at 5:25–26 (emphasis added). For example, the information identifies the “sending institution,” “receiving institution,” and “the disposition of the check.” Id. at 5:26–31. As we discussed in a prior claim construction of this term, we are persuaded that information identifying the sending institution is a SSID. See Jack Henry CBM, Paper 37, 8–11. Thus, when this information is encrypted, it is an encrypted SSID, as required by claim 1. See also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–65, 78–84, 91 (Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Knox, testifying that the encrypted information in Campbell identifies the receiving institution). Patent Owner argues that Campbell discloses that the controller may be configured to handle encrypted information, which means that it “does not necessarily encrypt subsystem information” and that encryption is not “necessarily always . . . accomplished.” PO Resp. 32–34.14 Patent Owner does not provide an explanation as to how this, even if true, would preclude anticipation: Campbell would still disclose encrypted SSIDs if it disclosed the encryption as a capability but not a necessity of the system. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The law of anticipation does not require that the reference ‘teach’ what the subject patent teaches. . . . . [I]t is only necessary that the claims under attack, as construed by the court, ‘read on’ something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it”); see also Pet. Reply 5–6 (arguing that there is no requirement that the prior 14 Later in its Response, Patent Owner argues that, although Campbell may “encrypt the name of th[e] bank,” Campbell does not “encrypt[] identification information that identifies a particular subsystem of the . . . Bank.” PO Resp. 48–49. Thus, Patent Owner appears to recognize that in fact Campbell discloses encrypting the name of the bank (while disputing that the name is sufficient to be a SSID). art mandate the use of a disclosed feature). Notwithstanding, we disagree that Campbell only occasionally encrypts SSIDs, for the reasons explained in the prior paragraph. Reviewing the record before us, we are persuaded that Campbell discloses transmitting an encrypted SSID.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “relay network over a telecommunications company network. Ex. 1002, 12:50–61. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Mr. Ginsberg, acknowledges that Campbell describes transmission of signals over a public switched telephone network, but states that “the ‘central offices’ are not described as being remote from the receiving bank.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 22. Mr. Ginsberg appears to be discussing the portion of Campbell where it describes the signals 16 “Wide Area Network (WAN)[:] A data communications network that covers geographically separated areas, typically containing cities. Thus a WAN is usually composed of Local Area Networks (LAN) interconnected by other communications links hired from a PTT or other common carrier.” Focal Dictionary of Telecommunications (1999) available at http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/bhfidt/wide_area_network_w an/0 (Ex. 3002). produced by the sending bank being transmitted on network access lines 22 to reach telephone network 10 and, more specifically, that “[t]he signals received by the network on line 22 may be transmitted through the network 10 via . . . one or more central offices to the check image processing node 12.” Ex. 1019, 3:17–43. Mr. Ginsberg does not explain how this passage supports his conclusion. Whether the “central offices” (not relied on by Petitioner for this claim) are remote to the sending bank has no bearing, which we can see, on whether Campbell describes a WAN. Campbell describes transmission of information between the sending bank and the node over a public switched telephone network; it is that communication that Petitioner asserts occurs over a WAN. See Pet. Reply 11–12; Pet. 30–31. A public switched telephone network covers geographically distinct locations. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that transmitting information over such a network generally involves the sender and receiver being in different locations; likewise, the system of Campbell makes little sense if the banks and the node are all in the same location.17 Accordingly, Mr. Ginsberg’s testimony on this point is unpersuasive. On the other hand, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Knox, explains how the Campbell system uses a public switched telephone network and a frame relay network, which Dr. Knox testifies is a type of WAN. Ex. 1003 ¶ 158. This testimony is persuasive, under its own reasoning and because, as” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,032,137 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,032,137
• Fiserv, Inc. v. Datatreasury CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2015 · CBM2014-00087 · APJ William V Saindon · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 16, 18, 22, 26, 29, 36, 38–42, 46–49, 58–60, 66–69, 73, 74, 80, 82–84, 88–91, 102, 106–110, and 114–123 are unpatentable as anticipated by Campbell; the remaining challenged claims were not shown …

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In our Decision to Institute this trial, we determined the broadest reasonable interpretation of “subsystem identification information” is “information that identifies a subsystem.” Dec. Inst. 8. There, as here, we relied on our prior interpretation of this term in the Jack Henry CBM. See Jack Henry CBM, Paper 17, 9–10; id., Paper 37, 9–12. Notably, we determined, as an ancillary matter to construing the term, that “nothing in the claims, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification, requires any form of ownership or other type of corporate relationship between the various subsystems; only that they function in the manner set forth in the claims.” Id., Paper 37, 12.5” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “B. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1062–1065. PO Mot. Excl. 2–3. Petitioner filed the disputed exhibits on April 7, 2015, which was more than two months after Petitioner filed its Reply and 22 days before oral hearing. Id. Petitioner characterizes its submission as “supplemental information” and “apologizes for its oversight” of the “minor procedural defect” of not seeking authorization to file a motion for supplemental information. Pet. Opp. Mot. Excl. 2. We dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude because we hereby order the expungement of Exhibits 1062–1065 for being filed without prior authorization.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “With a full record, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position. Campbell does not state that only the image is encrypted. Instead, Campbell states that “information [is] encrypted . . . to provide security for the images transported.” Ex. 1019, 5:55–58 (emphasis added). Thus, Campbell uses the terms information and image to refer to different collections of data. Earlier in that column, Campbell also explains what it means by “information,” and it is clear that this information is not just images but rather includes “information [that] accompan[ies] those images.” Id. at 5:25–26 (emphasis added). For example, the information identifies the “sending institution,” “receiving institution,” and “the disposition of the check.” Id. at 5:26–31. As we discussed in a prior claim construction of this term, we are persuaded that information identifying the sending institution is a SSID. See Jack Henry CBM, Paper 37, 9–12. Thus, when this information is encrypted, it is an encrypted SSID, as required by claim 1. See also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–65, 78–84, 91 (Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Knox, testifying that the encrypted information in Campbell identifies the receiving institution).” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “bank and the node over a public switched telephone network; it is that communication that Petitioner asserts occurs over a WAN. See Pet. Reply 10; Pet. 21–22. A public switched telephone network covers geographically distinct locations. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that transmitting information over such a network generally involves the sender and receiver being in different locations; likewise, the system of Campbell makes little sense if the banks and the node are all in the same location. Accordingly, Mr. Ginsberg’s testimony on this point is unpersuasive. On the other hand, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Knox, explains how the Campbell system uses a public switched telephone network and a frame relay network, which Dr. Knox testifies is a type of WAN. Ex. 1003 ¶ 158. This testimony is persuasive, under its own reasoning and because, as we mentioned above, the WAN in the ’988 patent involves a frame relay network over a telecommunications company’s network.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 5,910,988 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 5,910,988
• Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 24, 2015 · IPR2014-00482 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13–15, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29–31, 33, 35, and 37 are unpatentable; claims 12 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We previously determined that, under a broad but reasonable construction, one of skill in the art would have understood the term “virtual private network communication link,” in light of the Specification, to include “a transmission path between two devices that restricts access to data, addresses, or other information on the path, generally using obfuscation methods to hide information on the path, including, but not limited to, one or more of authentication, encryption, or address hopping.” Dec. on Inst. 6–7. 1 Patent Owner disputes this interpretation and argues that the term “virtual private network communication link” must be “a communication path between computers in a virtual private network” (PO Resp. 8), “requir[es] computers within a VPN to communicate directly” (PO Resp. 10), and requires a “network of computers,” which, according to Patent Owner must be “more than a ‘path between two devices.’” PO Resp. 14. We decline to modify our previous construction of this term in the manner suggested by Patent Owner because such a modification is immaterial in this proceeding for reasons set forth below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the case).” slip op. at 3

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

    “understood that a “secure computer network address” must be “associated with a computer capable of virtual private network communications” because a claim recites “sending an access request message to the secure computer network address using a virtual private network communication link.” PO Resp. 16. We agree with Patent Owner that claim 1, for example, recites “sending an access request message to the secure computer network address using a virtual private network communication link.” However, Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently why an explicitly recited claim limitation must be incorporated into the construction of an associated claim term. Indeed, if one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that all secure computer network addresses must be associated with a computer capable of VPN communications and that any computer network address that is associated with computers that are incapable of VPN communications would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art not to be a “secure computer network address” (even if authorization for access is required), then any such recited claim limitation would be superfluous. Patent Owner also argues that “VirnetX’s proposed construction has been agreed to by its litigation adversaries and has been adopted by a district court.” PO Resp. 17. Even if Patent Owner’s proposed construction “has been agreed to by” parties in litigation and the district court, Patent Owner does not assert or demonstrate persuasively that one of ordinary skill in the art would have broadly but reasonably construed the term “secure computer network address” in light of the Specification to require association with a computer capable of virtual private network communications. In any event, Patent Owner does not appear to contend that the cited references fail to disclose a secure computer network address that is associated with a computer capable of VPN communications and, therefore, does not demonstrate sufficiently that the construction of “secure computer network address” will bear on the outcome of the issues in this inter partes review. We decline to modify our construction of this term.” slip op. at 5

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “computer network address” of “the server-side proxy” (and not the “host”). PO Resp. 32 (emphasis omitted). In other words, Patent Owner argues that, in contrast to claim 1, which requires sending a query message requesting an address and receiving a response message containing the address requested in the query message, Kiuchi discloses sending a query message requesting an address of “the host” but receiving a response message containing an address of “the server-side proxy,” rather than “the host.” Based on this presumption that “the host” of Kiuchi differs from the “server-side proxy” of Kiuchi, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose the claimed invention and also that “the Board has exceeded its statutory authority by instituting in part on rationales that were not before it.” PO Resp. 30. However, Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently a difference between “the host” and the “server-side proxy” of Kiuchi. Kiuchi discloses that a client-side proxy “asks the C-HTTP name server whether it can communicate with the host” and that, in response, the C-HTTP name server examines “the requested server-side proxy” and responds by sending the IP address of the server-side proxy. Ex. 1004, 65 (emphasis added). In other words, Kiuchi discloses that “the host” that is requested is the requested “server-side proxy.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiuchi with the other references.” PO Resp. 3. Petitioner provides reasons with supporting factual underpinnings to support the conclusion that the combination of Kiuchi and Bhatti (and/or Tavs) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 34–35, 38–39. For example, Petitioner states that one of ordinary skill in the art would implement Kiuchi’s user agent such that the user agent sends an access request for content stored on the origin server, in the same manner that Bhatti describes sending an access request from a user terminal for content stored [on] a content server. Pet. 38. Petitioner also states that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the ’180 patent to modify the client-side proxy and server-side proxy described by Kiuchi to support the service-level categorization and differentiation described by Tavs in order to give priority to business-relevant traffic during peak network congestion.” Pet. 34. Patent Owner does not dispute the reasons provided by Petitioner as to why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined teachings of Kiuchi and Bhatti (and/or Tavs) but argues that this obviousness ground “is critically flawed because the Petition relies solely on missing expert testimony for its rationale for combining” the references. PO Resp. 54, 56. However, Patent Owner does not explain why Petitioner is required to provide expert testimony in support of a proposed ground of unpatentability. Nor does Patent Owner explain the supposed flaws in the rationale provided by Petitioner.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,188,180 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,188,180
• Jack Henry And Associates, Inc. v. Datatreasury Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 8, 2015 · CBM2014-00057 · APJ William V Saindon · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 16, 18, 26, 27, 42, and 46 are unpatentable: Campbell anticipates five claims, and Campbell with Blackwell renders five claims obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “stamp . . . , an identification number to identify the merchant originating the scan and any additional useful information.” Ex. 1001, 8:14–17 (emphasis added). The DAT_TERMINAL_ID, which is part of the unencrypted tag, “uniquely identifies the DAT 200 which is used by the customer.” Id. at 10:27–33. The DAT 200, also known as the remote data access terminal (id. at 4:62–63) is shown in Figure 2 and is a collection of components found at the merchant (e.g., bank). Id. at 5:20–38. Thus, in this particular example, the SSID (which is not encrypted) identifies the remote data access terminal, for example, the subsystem that scans and sends images at a bank. Nothing about the term “subsystem identification information,” as set forth in the claims or specification, indicates that only the remote data access subsystems can have an SSID; this is merely an example. Accordingly, we construed SSID in a manner that encompassed a preferred embodiment but, because the specification provided no indication that the term should be read more narrowly, we did not limit SSID to the particular embodiment identified by Patent Owner. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.”).” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Regarding Petitioner’s improper use of sub-exhibits within an exhibit, we note that, although parties are not permitted to file combined documents as Petitioner has done in Exhibit 1026, see 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3), exclusion would be too extreme a remedy in this instance, where there is insufficient prejudice to Patent Owner. A more reasonable remedy would be to have Petitioner re-file the documents, but at this late stage of the proceeding, where briefing has closed, there is no compelling reason to have Petitioner re-file the documents.” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenMixed

    “We agree with Petitioner that Campbell discloses a plurality of sending and receiving banks. Ex. 1018, 6:9–14 (describing subscribing and non-subscribing banks using the system). Petitioner, however, relied on the node in Campbell to show the central location limitation of independent claim 26, not the remote bank. Pet. 31. Petitioner does not explain how Campbell describes a plurality of nodes (or, conversely, how the receiving bank describes each feature of the central location). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s observation that Petitioner has failed to address the claim limitations is persuasive. We determine that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Campbell anticipates the subject matter of claim 29.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “With a full record, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position. Campbell does not state that only the image is encrypted. Instead, Campbell states that “information [is] encrypted . . . to provide security for the images transported.” Ex. 1018, 5:55–58 (emphasis added). Thus, Campbell uses the terms information and image for different things. Earlier in that column, Campbell also explains what it means by “information,” and it is clear that this information is not just images but rather includes “information that accompan[ies] those images.” Id. at 5:25– 26 (emphasis added). For example, the information identifies the “sending institution,” “receiving institution,” and “the disposition of the check.” Id. at 5:26–31. As we discussed above in our claim construction section, we are persuaded that information that identifies the sending institution is an SSID. Thus, when this information is encrypted, it is an encrypted SSID, as required by claim 1. See also Ex. 1026, 14 (Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Michalson, testifying that the encrypted information in Campbell identifies the receiving institution). Reviewing the record before us, we are persuaded that Campbell discloses transmitting an encrypted SSID.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 5,910,988 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 5,910,988
• Ricoh Americas Corporation / Xerox Corporation v. MPHJ Technology Investments, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2014 · IPR2013-00302 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 7–11 are unpatentable because the XNS Manual anticipates them; Petitioner did not show that the XNS Manual or Salgado anticipates claim 6.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Accordingly, a “software application” is a program, or group of programs, which operate together in a system to perform a function or functions, and the programs can be stored in a variety of places on a variety of devices, and operate in a distributed manner. An application may include software and hardware and performs a function or functions.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive. As explained in the Overview section, the application layer itself contains multiple protocols for each application, i.e., mailing, printing, filing, and gateway access. See Ex. 1002, 14–16, Fig. 2-4. Even if lower layer protocols do not “disturb[]” upper layer protocols, as Patent Owner contends, and even if an application layer does not contain multiple protocols (which Patent Owner does not contend), different layers of protocols generally communicate with, or at least “use the resources of,” lower layers through “interfaces.” Id. at 14, 11 (“[A] commonly-accepted perspective is that the functions of one layer use the resources of the lower layers to complete their assigned tasks.”). In any event, the application layer protocols comprise several types of application protocols. Id. at 15 (Fig. 2-4), 16.” slip op. at 25

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner moves to exclude Dr. Melen’s testimony on re-direct during his deposition. Paper 40. We do not consider any of the re-direct testimony, rendering the motion moot. Therefore, we dismiss it.” slip op. at 49

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Even if Patent Owner’s assertions raise doubt as to Dr. Melen’s use of the XNS Manual to support his opinion that it anticipates claim 6, see id. at 9–12, Patent Owner does not show how this translates to undermining Dr. Melen’s opinion regarding the other claims. Throughout his analysis of the XNS Manual, Dr. Melen’s declaration provides specific and accurate citations to the XNS Manual (Ex. 1002), supporting his opinion and showing that he relies on the XNS Manual’s disclosure. See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 29–47. In addition, because Petitioner has not shown that the XNS Manual or Salgado anticipates claim 6, Dr. Melen’s opinion about claim 6 is not of significant consequence. In reciprocal fashion, Petitioner maintains that “the Board should give no weight to Mr. Weadock’s Declaration.” Pet. Reply 7–8. Mr. Weadock’s testimony is not necessary to reach our decision with regard to claim 6, and we did not consider it in reaching the decision about claim 6. Given the finding of anticipation of claims 1–5 and 7–11, the issue is moot. Nevertheless, as this Final Decision implies, we afforded Mr. Weadock’s declaration and Dr. Melen’s declaration due weight in reaching the finding that the XNS Manual anticipates claims 1–5 and 7–11.” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 7,986,426 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,986,426

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.