• Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01235 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable under either obviousness ground because Szrek did not disclose a pre-printed lottery ticket without lottery numbers associated at customer purchase.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “real party in interest. Prelim. Resp. 1–2, 32–34. In the Institution Decision, we stated: To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party of interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial. Inst. Dec. 11. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner did not raise the issue of challenging Petitioner’s identified real party in interest. See generally PO Resp. Thus, we need not address this issue further because we find that Patent Owner has waived any challenge to Petitioner’s identification of the real parties in interest in this proceeding. See Paper 12 (Scheduling Order), 9 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”).” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that the level of ordinary skill in the art is an artisan with a working knowledge of POS activation systems and lottery systems that was gained through a mixture of training and work experience in the relevant field such as (i) having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer communications, electrical engineering, or equivalent degree, coupled with at least three years of work experience; (ii) having a Master’s degree in computer science, computer communications, or electrical engineering, but having less work experience; or (iii) having no formal degree, but having experience in the relevant field of at least six years of work experience. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13).5 Patent Owner states that, “[f]or the purpose of this proceeding, Patent Owner adopts the Petition’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 19. 5 Petitioner proposes the same level of ordinary skill in the art that the Board adopted in PGR2020-00084. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1008, 11). We find that the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’135 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 14; see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “Following the block quote from Yacenda, the applicant then stated, “[b]ased on the foregoing, Yacenda’s system is directly opposite of the instant claims, as the instant claims require a ‘pre-printed lottery ticket’ which has no lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.’” Ex. 1002, 76. This statement is clear and unmistakable. It (1) specifically states that “the instant claims require” and (2) then states what the claims require—a “‘pre-printed lottery ticket’ which has no lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.” We fail to see how the applicant could have been more clear in stating a requirement of the Challenged Claims. And, by doing so, the applicant narrowed the scope of what would otherwise be encompassed in the meaning of “pre-printed lottery ticket” and therefore what would otherwise be encompassed in the scope of the Challenged Claims—a lottery ticket which has lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We do not find Mr. Hutton’s testimony particularly helpful. First, we have addressed the points raised by his testimony in our discussion above because they are largely the same as the arguments raised in Petitioner’s Reply. Second, we find his testimony entitled to very little weight because he applies an incorrect understanding of the caselaw, which mirrors Petitioner’s incorrect and arguably misleading quotations of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Quest. In particular, in paragraph 5, Mr. Hutton states the following as his understanding of the law as it applies to prosecution disclaimer: “I also understand that in order to disclaim embodiments within the specification, the statements should have some indication that the applicant intended to surrender embodiments from the specification.” Ex. 1038 ¶ 5 (emphasis added). This then leads Mr. Hutton to state: “[t]hus, in my opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not view applicant’s statements as a disclaimer, because the applicant never stated that they intended to surrender multiple embodiments described in the specification.” Id. ¶ 13 (emphasis added). As we explained above in responding to a similar argument by Petitioner, the caselaw does not require an applicant to expressly state whether a disclaimer excludes particular embodiments of the subject specification when disclaiming claim scope during prosecution. See Quest, 924 F.3d at 1229. And, as noted above, counsel for Petitioner agreed that such a statement explicitly disclaiming particular embodiments is not required. Tr. 12:18–13:17. Third, although we have considered Mr. Hutton’s testimony, we find it “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of” “pre-printed lottery ticket.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. In particular, we are cognizant of the Federal Circuit’s guidance that we “should discount any expert testimony that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by . . . the prosecution history.” Id. at 1318 (internal quotation omitted). In this instance, for the reasons explained above, we find that Mr. Hutton’s testimony is clearly at odds with the applicant’s arguments during prosecution and that his testimony is based on a misunderstanding of what is required by the governing caselaw for prosecution history disclaimer.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 9,865,135 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,865,135
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com Services LLC v. Nokia Technologies OYInstituted
  PTAB · Feb 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00921 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–15, 17–21, and 39 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority, acting on the designation of the Director, to determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review on all of the challenged claims based on all of the grounds identified in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a (1) bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study, and (2) approximately two to three years of practical experience with video and/or image processing or coding.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–63). Petitioner further argues that “[a]dditonal experience can substitute for the level of education, and vice-versa.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–63). Petitioner also identifies knowledge that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). Patent Owner states that it “has applied Petitioner’s [person having ordinary skill in the art] for the sake of this Response.” Prelim. Resp. 21. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the field of the invention of the ’991 patent and not disputed by Patent Owner, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art.7” slip op. at 9

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

    “1. Spatial Coding Petitioner argues that “spatial coding” means “coding in the spatial domain.” Pet. 28. According to Petitioner, the specification of the ’991 patent “describes spatial coding as the coding (e.g., quantizing and entropy coding) of pixel values in the spatial domain ‘without transform,’ but without limiting it to a particular algorithm or technique.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:6–23, Fig. 4). “Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s construction for the sake of this [Patent Owner Preliminary Response], but reserves the right to challenge this construction in the event of institution.” Prelim. Resp. 21. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed construction.” slip op. at 11

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

    “3. “The Difference Signal” (Claims 13 and 14). Petitioner argues that claims 13 and 14 “contain a drafting error that recites ‘the difference signal,’ without antecedent basis.” Pet. 29. According to Petitioner, a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have understood ‘the difference signal’ in these claims to mean ‘a difference signal representing differences between sample values of a predicted block of data and values for an original input block’ as recited in limitation [1a] of claim 1.” Id. For purposes of its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner “agree[d] with Petitioner’s construction of ‘the difference signal’ in Claims 13 and 14.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed construction.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,077,991
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 4, 2025 · IPR2023-01345 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7–11, and 14–20 were shown unpatentable over White or Nussbaum; claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable over White or Nussbaum with Shakkarwar.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not inclined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to require a specific number of years (or a fully bounded range) in the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. First, Patent Owner has not offered any legal authority supporting or explaining its position. Second, using the term “at least [X] years” is common practice and generally understood to be an approximation regarding the minimum level of skill of a hypothetical person—in other words, no precision can truly be expected of the specific number of years in this context. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person.”). The point of the exercise is to provide context for a holistic obviousness analysis. See id. (setting out “various factors” used to analyze the level of ordinary skill); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the hypothetical person is an “an imaginary being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a standard of patentability”). We are not persuaded of a need for strict precision in the number of years of experience of a hypothetical person used in our analysis in this case. Third, Patent Owner asks for no particular relief based upon its argument. That is, even if we agreed to remove “at least,” Patent Owner does not argue that the outcome of the Decision would be any different.1 1 For example, setting the level of skill to exactly two years of experience would not serve to automatically disqualify an expert having ten years. Kyocera Senco Ind’l Tools v. Int’l Trade Com’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (requiring that “a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art” and stating that “it would be improper to require an expert witness to possess ordinary skill in the art and nothing more”). In conclusion, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is reasonably consistent with the level of skill implied in the disclosure of the ’588 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The description of “mapping” in the ’588 patent makes clear to us that it is an association of an input value from a set of input values to a corresponding output value from a set of output values. Id. at 2:44–46 (describing “the mapping table that associates non-core domain operating frequencies and corresponding interconnect operating frequencies”) (emphases added). The “association” described here in the ’588 patent is not merely describing the fact that both exist, but that knowing the value of the first causes you to know the value of the second. This is also how it is described in the claims, wherein the “mapping” is “of selectable frequencies of the graphics processing circuitry to selectable frequencies of the interconnect.” Id. at 8:63–65 (emphasis added). Or more generally, the claim recites a mapping of a frequency to a frequency. In sum, although we agree with the parties that “mapping” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification, we note that the parties appear to dispute whether the prior art teaches the claimed “mapping” based on differing understandings of the plain and ordinary meaning. Based on our analysis above, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art reviewing the ’588 patent would understand that the “mapping” limitation requires (1) frequencies mapped to frequencies and (2) that a mapping is an association of one value to a corresponding value such that knowing the graphics frequency means that you know the corresponding interconnect frequency. Further, given that the corresponding frequencies are “selectable,” we understand that to mean that there is a set of possible frequencies that are defined from which to select. Ex. 2001, 21:19–22:2. With this understanding, we can turn to the dispute over whether the prior art teaches the limitations set forth in claims 5 and 12, as no other terms require construction at this time. Realtime, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms. . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Given this disclosure, we agree with the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar’s empirical calculation, by looking up the frequencies of various devices and summing them up, is not the claimed mapping of frequencies to frequencies. Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:8– 16, 6:49–7:17). That is, rather than teaching the use of the graphics device frequency get a corresponding interconnect frequency, Shakkarwar calculates the interconnect frequency by adding up the frequencies of all of the devices using the interconnect. Ex. 1006, 6:63–7:30; Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (“Considerations of the hardware are addressed through empirical calculation, by knowing the requested data bandwidth of each device.”). Based on the above, we find that Shakkarwar’s table does not map a set of frequencies to a set of frequencies, and we find that the alleged mapping in Shakkarwar is not what is required by the claim because knowing the non-core device frequency in Shakkarwar is insufficient to know the required interconnect frequency. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar does not teach the claimed mapping. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–45. On the other hand, the testimony of Petitioner’s expert is conclusory on this point, and fails to grapple with these differences between the claims and prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert over Petitioner’s expert as to the teachings of Shakkarwar.” slip op. at 16

  • BurdenMixed

    “that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Shakkarwar teaches the claimed mapping limitation, for the following reasons. The lookup table in Shakkarwar has a list of clock speeds (frequencies) for specific devices. Ex. 1006, 7:7–10. These clock speeds represent the bandwidth needs of each individual device. Id. at 7:10–13. By looking up the bandwidth needs of each individual device in use, the system can determine the total bandwidth need. Id. at 7:5–17. For example, if one device requires 20 Megabits of data and the second device requires 10 Megabits of data, then the data rate (bandwidth) required will be 30 Megabits of data. Id. at 7:13–17. If the required bandwidth is different from the current bandwidth, then the current bandwidth must be modified. Id. at 7:18–26. Given this disclosure, we agree with the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar’s empirical calculation, by looking up the frequencies of various devices and summing them up, is not the claimed mapping of frequencies to frequencies. Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:8– 16, 6:49–7:17). That is, rather than teaching the use of the graphics device frequency get a corresponding interconnect frequency, Shakkarwar calculates the interconnect frequency by adding up the frequencies of all of the devices using the interconnect. Ex. 1006, 6:63–7:30; Ex. 2002 ¶ 44 (“Considerations of the hardware are addressed through empirical calculation, by knowing the requested data bandwidth of each device.”). Based on the above, we find that Shakkarwar’s table does not map a set of frequencies to a set of frequencies, and we find that the alleged mapping in Shakkarwar is not what is required by the claim because knowing the non-core device frequency in Shakkarwar is insufficient to know the required interconnect frequency. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Shakkarwar does not teach the claimed mapping. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–45. On the other hand, the testimony of Petitioner’s expert is conclusory on this point, and fails to grapple with these differences between the claims and prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Thus, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert over Petitioner’s expert as to the teachings of Shakkarwar.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,705,588 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,705,588
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 4, 2025 · IPR2023-01335 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, and 13 are unpatentable over Conroy and Finkelstein or Conroy; claims 14–18 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are not inclined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal to require a specific number of years (or a fully bounded range) in the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. First, Patent Owner has not offered any legal authority supporting or justifying its position. Second, using the term “at least [X] years” is common practice and generally understood to be an approximation regarding the minimum level of skill of a hypothetical person—in other words, no precision can truly be expected of the specific number of years in this context. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person.”). The point of the exercise is to provide context for a holistic obviousness analysis. See id. (setting out “various factors” used to analyze the level of ordinary skill); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”); Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the hypothetical person is an “an imaginary being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a standard of patentability”). We are not persuaded of a need for strict precision in the number of years of experience of a hypothetical person used in our analysis in this case. Third, Patent Owner asks for no particular relief based upon its argument. That is, even if we agreed to remove “at least,” Patent Owner does not argue that the outcome of the Decision would be any different.1 In conclusion, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is reasonably consistent with the level of skill implied in the disclosure of the ’833 patent and the cited prior art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Pet. 10. Patent Owner provides a construction for the term “independent” of claim 1. PO Resp. 12–18. For context, claim 1 requires first and second domains, wherein “each of the first and second domains [] operate at an independent voltage and frequency.” Patent Owner provides its analysis and concludes that claim 1 requires that the voltage and frequency of the first and second domains to be “controlled separately from one another.” PO Resp. 14, 15. We disagree with Patent Owner’s conclusion. In particular, we note that Patent Owner is attempting to add a “control” limitation to the claim. The claim does not require independent control of the first and second domains, it requires them “to operate at an independent voltage and frequency.” That is, by the plain language of the claims, what is independent is the voltage and frequency of the first domain compared to the voltage and frequency of the second domain. Patent Owner identifies many passages in the ’833 patent specification allegedly supporting its position, but we do not find any of these passages persuades us to agree with Patent Owner’s position. See PO Resp. 12–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:13–17, 1:63–66, 7:59–62, 8:27–31, 8:38– 46, 10:4–8). These passages mostly state that the domains are independent, which we understand to mean “separate” in this context. Ex. 1001, 1:63–66, 7:59–62, 8:27–31, 8:38–46, 10:4–8; accord PO Resp. 14 (summarizing these citations and concluding that “the term ‘independent’ is used in its ordinary sense to mean ‘separate.’”); Ex. 2002 ¶ 33 (same). One passage is similar to the claim language, and recites that a core can be “of an independent power domain and can be configured to operate at an independent voltage and/or frequency.” Id. at 8:27–31. We see nothing in these passages that would require independent control as opposed to “operate at an independent voltage and frequency” as claimed. Instead, in the one passage that is similar to the claim language, it is clear that what is “independent” is the “voltage and/or frequency.” Id. at 8:27–31. Patent Owner then cites to another batch of passages from the ’833 patent and concludes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ’833 patent is describing a situation in which voltages and/or frequencies of the different domains are controlled separately from one another.” PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:56–60, 1:63–66, 2:22–25, 2:32–36, 5:9–12, 5:21, 5:27–44, 7:20–24, 8:38–42, Fig. 1; Ex. 2002 ¶ 33). Most of these passages describe the domains being allocated portions of a power budget. See Ex. 1001, 1:56–60, 2:22–25, 5:28–40, 7:20–24, 8:38–42. One passage is similar to the prior batch of citations, stating that the domains themselves are independent. Id. at 1:63–66. Other passages describe a power control unit doing the allocation, and refers to this as “control.” Id. at 2:32–36, 5:27–26, 5:21, 5:40–44. Last cited by Patent Owner is Figure 1, which has a box labeled “Control First and Second Domains Frequency and Voltage.” Id., Fig. 1 (item 130). Reviewing the cited passages and the figure, we find that the power control unit allocates or controls power. However, the claim is not directed to the power control unit and it does not use the word “control.” The claim requires the first and second domains to have independent voltages and frequencies, and we fail to see any support in the specification to add an additional requirement for independent control of the first and second domains. In view of the above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “claim 13, it is the domain that is allocated the power budget (as opposed to the domain’s individual cores). See Ex. 1001, 12:57–59 (“allocate a variable power budget between the . . . domains”), 1:56–66 (explaining domains— “the term ‘domain’ is used to mean a collection of hardware and/or logic that operates at the same voltage and frequency point”). We agree with Patent Owner and credit its expert that Nussbaum is concerned with the power settings of each individual core, GPU, or other computational unit. Ex. 2003 ¶ 63. Even if, in one passage, Nussbaum talks about power reallocation in “computational units, such as the CPU or [GPU],” in context it is clear that the allocations remain on the individual, e.g., core, level. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 19– 20, 21 (Table 1), 23 (Table 2), 24. First, in the sentence just cited, Nussbaum disparages treating units homogenously, i.e., adjusting them in groups or domains (as required by claim 13). Id. ¶ 19. Then, Nussbaum praises distributing power “among the active cores or other computational units,” i.e., on an individual or core level. Id. In this phrase, Nussbaum is not using “computational units” as a word meaning “CPU,” because Nussbaum already directly references the “cores” in the phrase. Id. Nussbaum later discusses figuring out how each core reacts to power changes, in order to determine which cores can better exploit additional power. Id. ¶¶ 25–28. For these reasons, we credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that Nussbaum does not disclose allocating power to a plurality of cores as a single domain (Ex. 2002 ¶ 63), which is consistent with the above-noted disclosures of Nussbaum.” slip op. at 15

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

    “not address these passages of the Petition. See generally PO Resp. 57–59, Sur-reply 17–18. Instead, Patent Owner challenges a separate, general rationale that Petitioner made at the beginning of its ground. See Pet. 69. Rationales that are broad and general may be persuasive. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[R]ationale[s] [are] not inherently suspect merely because [they’re] generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal. Quite the opposite.”). We need not evaluate Petitioner’s general rationale here, however, because we find Petitioner’s unrebutted, specific rationale arguments about providing a user interface to edit or revise the power sharing values to be persuasive. See Pet. 77–78 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1029 ¶ 236). In particular, we agree with Petitioner that providing a user interface to allow a user to edit the power tables, as taught in Finkelstein, would have been a routine and obvious modification to Conroy. As Petitioner’s expert points out, even beyond the teachings of Finkelstein, it was known in the art to allow users control over power allocation. Ex. 1029 ¶ 236 (citing Ex. 1026, 11:13–27 (describing a “user preferences database” containing “parameters and procedures for how to apportion power among various devices”); Ex. 1028 ¶ 17 (“The [power allocation] preference might be determined . . . based on a selection by a user of the system (e.g., via a graphical interface).”)). Thus, Petitioner’s proposed combination is an example of using a known feature to provide a known benefit. The known feature is a user interface, and the known benefit is allowing the user to indicate their preferences through the interface. See Ex. 1029 ¶ 236; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.”). Based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has established a reason with rational underpinnings for combining the user level control interface of Finkelstein with the power management system of Conroy.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,775,833 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,775,833
• Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01137 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–7 and 9–23 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “Our consideration of discretionary denials is guided by the Director’s Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, issued on June 21, 2022 (“Memorandum”).7 The Memorandum states that, consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Massimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential), “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Memorandum, 3 (footnote and emphasis omitted).” slip op. at 6

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

    “c. Discussion At this stage, we preliminarily determine Petitioner has shown that Nakajima teaches or reasonably suggests each element of claim 1, but we encourage the parties to develop the record regarding the meaning of “pivotal about an axis” as recited in Limitation 1[b][3][i] during the trial phase. As cited by Petitioner, from the closed position, for example, the Nakajima’s mouthpiece would appear to move based on clockwise rotation about hinge shaft 19. Pet. 35. Patent Owner appears correct that at some point in the opening (or closing) process, Nakajima’s mouthpiece additionally moves based on rotation about protrusions 25. Prelim. Resp. 44–45. At this stage, we preliminarily determine that such additional rotation is not foreclosed by the plain language of the claims.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). Patent Owner states that it applies the level of skill set forth in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 35. At this stage, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears reasonable and consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art and the ’255 patent. D. Claim Construction” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner contends that “adapted to” in independent claims 1 and 20 means “‘designed or configured to’ and is not satisfied by mere hypothetical capability.” Prelim. Resp. 36; see Prelim. Resp. 36–41. We address Patent Owner’s arguments below with our discussion of Petitioner’s Ribartis-based arguments. Based on the current record, however, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). E. Alleged Obviousness” slip op. at 8

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,676,255
• Crusoe Energy Systems, LLC v. Upstream Data Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2025 · PGR2023-00039 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 24 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept; the petitioner did not prove the remaining challenged claims unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, including: “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citations omitted). “The patent’s purpose can also be informative.” Id. (citation omitted). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a degree in chemical engineering, petroleum engineering, process engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar field with 1–2 years of experience in designing power generation systems, Blockchain mining systems, or other comparable hands-on experience.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Petitioner adds that “[a]lternatively, a person having 3–5 years of experience in the Blockchain mining industry would also qualify as a POSITA” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, or vice versa.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We apply the same claim construction standard used in district court actions under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), namely that articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2024). In applying that standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable

    “To address that “the mining processors are connected to the network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database,” as recited by limitation [1c_iii], Petitioner asserts that CryptoKube’s system includes “Bitcoin miners such as spondooliestech SP35 servers.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–4). And, relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Kasdorf, Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that to mine Bitcoin, the mining processors need to be connected to a network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database, which is implemented as a public ledger distributed among many peer-to-peer devices connected to the Internet. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 108–109; Ex. 1010 ¶ 419). Mr. Kasdorf’s declaration testimony is nearly verbatim to the Petition and similarly provides no indication as to what in CryptoKube constitutes a “mining processor” other than his conclusory opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that to mine bitcoin, the mining processors need to be connected to a network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the 19 We note that Mr. Kasdorf’s reliance on Kheterpal is limited to Kheterpal’s background discussion regarding the Bitcoin protocol inasmuch as it “defines a system in which the creation and distribution of the bitcoin cryptocurrency is governed by consensus among a peer-to-peer network” and includes “a public ledger in which new transactions are verified and recorded by members of the network via cryptography.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 4. Ex. 1004 ¶ 108 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 4). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that in the Petition, neither Petitioner nor Mr. Kasdorf explains or “cite[s] any evidence regarding which component is the ‘necessarily’ present mining processor (limitation 1[c_i]) or how this unspecified mining processor is ‘connected to the network interface and adapted to . . . communicate with the blockchain database’ (limitation 1[c_iii]).” PO Resp. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 104–105, 108–109).” slip op. at 21

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s contention that “a combination of an ASIC chip and a controller would meet the ‘mining processor’ limitation” (Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 21)) is an improper new argument. In determining whether an argument is a proper argument in reply, we look to see if the Reply argument is responsive to an argument from Patent Owner and expands on a position in the Petition. See Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[W]e have held that a reply may be proper if it is responsive and simply expands on previously raised arguments.”). Or, if Petitioner relies on previously unidentified disclosure “to make a meaningfully distinct contention.” Id. at 1383 (“[W]e held that a petitioner who asserted in its reply previously unidentified prior-art disclosures ‘to make a meaningfully distinct contention’ was impermissibly raising a new theory of unpatentability.”). We find that Petitioner’s argument in reply is closer to the later situation. Here Petitioner does not expand on a position from the Petition that Patent Owner criticizes based on the merits of the contentions. Rather, Petitioner supplements its conclusory assertion that a “mining processor” is necessarily present in CryptoKube’s spondooliestech SP35 servers (Pet. 23, 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–4)) with its new assertion that that “a combination of an ASIC chip and a controller would meet the ‘mining processor’ limitation.” Pet. Reply 11. Petitioner does not purport to have presented this theory in the Petition. Id. Instead, Petitioner argues that this theory was properly raised in response to what Petitioner alleges to be an admission by” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,574,372 mixed
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Electric Power · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,574,372
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2023-01027 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 37–70 are unpatentable: claims 37–41, 47, 50–56, 58–59, 60–62, 64–65, and 70 as anticipated by Alden; the remaining challenged claims as obvious over Alden and the listed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). 3 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/70538 A2 (Exhibit 1010). 4 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/01038 (Exhibit 1006). 5 U.S. Patent No. 4,970,628 (Exhibit 1007). 6 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,158 (Exhibit 1008). 7 U.S Patent No. 6,049,749 (Exhibit 1009). 8 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 02/04247 A1 (Exhibit 1011). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (PO Resp. 4), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Claim Construction We construe claims using the standard that would be applied in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), giving terms their ordinary and customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and prosecution history. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The Petition asserts that all claim terms should be given their “ordinary and customary meaning.” See Pet. 8. Patent Owner also proposes that the claim terms be given their ordinary meaning, and identifies the “ordinary meaning” for the terms “identify,” “turn,” and “curve,” which we discuss in our analysis below. We otherwise find that that no express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01003 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 6, 15, 16, and 19 are unpatentable; claims 2, 8–10, 12, 14, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “Call” Terms (Claims 1, 8, and 15) The parties, and their respective experts, agree that “telephone call” (claim 1), “electronic call” (claim 8), and “electronic phone call” (claim 15) should be interpreted to mean “voice communication over an electronic network between at least two parties,” which was Patent Owner’s proposal in the district court case. See Pet. 16, 19 n.8, 58 (citing Ex. 1027, 9);1 Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 51–53; Ex. 2016, 176:10–177:6 (Dr. Kyriakakis agreeing that “there is live voice exchange during a telephone call” (in addition to “background noise”)), 180:22–181:11 (same). Based on our review of the ’090 patent, we agree as well and adopt that interpretation for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 3, l. 1–col. 5, l. 44 (“Consider an example in which a listener sits at his kitchen table and has an electronic telephone call with his mother.”), Fig. 1. 1 When citing non-patent references, we refer to page numbers added by Petitioner in the bottom-right corner of the exhibit. Listening Person” (Claim 1) and “Sound Localization Point . . . Away From and Proximate to the First Person” (Claim 15) a) Procedural History As explained above, the parties did not propose any express interpretations in their Petition and Response. See Pet. 15; PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner argued, however, that “Petitioner and Dr. Kyriakakis misapprehend the scope and meaning of the [c]hallenged [c]laims.” PO Resp. 35–49. For example, Patent Owner argued that they “mischaracterize [c]laim 1’s scope as exclusively directed at binaural recording (but not binaural synthesis),” claim 8 “inherently us[es] binaural synthesis and HRTF processing,” and “binaural synthesis methods must be employed” for claim 15. Id. at 36, 46, 48–49 (emphasis omitted). In its Reply, Petitioner characterized the dispute between the parties as pertaining to the phrase “away from and proximate to,” where Petitioner proposed an interpretation of “a distance from” and Patent Owner allegedly was proposing “externalization of sound through HRTFs and [6 degree of freedom (6DOF)] tracking of the listener relative to the SLP that represents the talker.” Reply 2–12. Patent Owner responded in its Sur-Reply by stating that Petitioner “mischaracterizes” Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner “disputes constructions that [Patent Owner] never proposed,” and Petitioner’s focus on certain claim language for which Patent Owner “never proposed construction” was “misplaced.” Sur-Reply 1–2, 11. Patent Owner agreed, though, that the parties’ disagreement was “whether the claims require HRTF processing and whether [the] prior art teaches such processing.” Id. at 5; see Tr. 49:19–21 (Patent Owner agreeing that the dispute is “whether the claims require . . . processing with HRTFs”). dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 13

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

    “dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner relies on its earlier arguments regarding claim 17. Pet. 41; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 184 (citing earlier analysis of Bedingfield). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to apply Ballas’s wearable frame with head tracking and HRTF processing to Bedingfield-Andrea’s headphones” to “provide[] a more realistic virtual experience,” but does not make any argument that Ballas teaches changing an ITD. Pet. 39–43; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–191. For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that Bedingfield teaches changing an ITD. See supra Section II.D.6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 18 would have been obvious based on Bedingfield, Andrea, and Ballas under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 61

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “exceptional remedy of striking sentences in the Sur-Reply. Patent Owner filed the deposition transcripts of Dr. Welch and Dr. Roginska “only for the limited purpose of allowing the Board to understand the context of the cross-examination” and “does not rely on the[] [e]xhibits for any substantive argument in [the] Sur-Reply.” Sur-Reply v–vi. Patent Owner does not cite Exhibits 2029 and 2030 themselves in its Sur-Reply; it only cites Dr. Kyriakakis’s deposition transcript in this proceeding. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that its arguments in the Sur-Reply are properly responsive to the Reply because they address Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony where he was questioned about the opinions in his reply declaration (but we do not agree with Patent Owner’s claim interpretation arguments on the merits, for the reasons explained above). See Mot. to Strike Opp. 3; supra Section II.B.2.e. We also agree, under the particular factual circumstances presented, that filing Exhibits 2029 and 2030 was proper so the Board has the full context in which to evaluate Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike is denied.” slip op. at 79

  Patent outcomesUS 9,226,090 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,226,090
• Meta Platforms, Inc. / Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC et al. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01023 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–14 are unpatentable under §103; claims 2, 10, and 17–20 were not shown unpatentable under either asserted ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “research experience in virtual/augmented reality, including visual and audio modeling and rendering” and that “[a]dditional education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–37). “Patent Owner accepts Petitioner’s definition of [a POSITA].” PO Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we also adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner asserts that “[t]he challenged claims are unpatentable under any reasonable construction, including their plain meaning.” Pet. 5. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that no claim construction is required. See id. Patent Owner contends “that ‘no express constructions of the claims are necessary.’” PO Resp. 2 (citing Dec. 10). We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). To the extent that the meaning of any claim term is addressed, we use its ordinary and customary meaning as discussed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

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

    “preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault disclose or suggest “highlighting, while the user is located in the zone and with a display of the WED, one of the multiple SLPs in the zone when the PED held in the hand of the user is pointed at one of the multiple SLPs in the zone” as required by claim 1. Even if we assume (without deciding) that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is an SLP, we agree with Patent Owner that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is “at the boundary” of its “safe area” (i.e., zone), not “in the zone” as required by limitation 1[c]. PO Sur-reply 4; Ex. 1005, 11:66–12:15. In other words, the virtual fence “defines the zone itself and thus is not in the zone” as the claim requires. PO Sur-reply 4. Petitioner has not addressed this difference between what is claimed and what is disclosed by Pedrotti or explained why the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault would have rendered placement of the virtual fence “in the zone” obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that it would have been obvious for highlighting to occur in response to the user pointing a PED at the virtual fence (or any other virtual image). Rather, Petitioner repeatedly asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pedrotti’s system could have used highlighting when the PED is pointed at one of the SLPs, without pointing to sufficient basis in Pedrotti’s disclosure or explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement highlighting in the manner claimed. Pet. 20–22. Dr. Welch similarly testifies, without sufficient support in Pedrotti, regarding what a person of ordinary skill in the art “could” have done. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 268–272, 275–276. Such reasoning is inadequate to demonstrate obviousness because “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).” slip op. at 18

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner also makes a number of new arguments in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have used Pedrotti’s system to highlight other SLPs, such as Pedrotti’s virtual ‘weapon[s],’” relying in part on “additional references.” Reply 6–10. Petitioner, however, only briefly referenced virtual sword 802 in its Petition and did not advocate the same theories for limitation 1[c] in its Petition. See Pet. 13 (mentioning a “virtual weapon” in connection with limitation 1[a]), 19–20; Tr. 53:17–55:1. Accordingly, these arguments in the Reply are improper new arguments, which we do not consider. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 74 (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) (“CTPG”) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.”); Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 10,798,509 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,798,509
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01169 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–20 are unpatentable over Thomas; claim 3 is not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 22–36 are unpatentable, and substitute claim 21 is not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “g) Conclusion—Claim 1 Based on the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that” slip op. at 28

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

    “g) Conclusion—Claim 1 Based on the arguments and evidence of record, we determine that” slip op. at 28

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

    “with the computer program 110.” Ex. 1005, 3:54–55. Thomas describes that (1) the “collected data is then stored in the database 130,” (2) the collected “data is stored in a data structure, generally referred to as a user’s profile,” and (3) the collected “data is logically linked to an event, or situation, that initiated the user’s input.” Id. at 3:56–61. Thomas describes creating or establishing a user profile by simulator 120 recording “the user’s decision/input” and storing “the user’s input in the field or sub-profile associated with the particular situation and/or event.” Id. at 4:67–5:5, Fig. 6. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s showing for element [1.3]. Also, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, we must consider what Thomas discloses rather than whether Thomas uses the exact claim term “instruction sets.” Cf. Gleave, 560 F.3d at 1334 (a reference does not have to satisfy an ipsis verbis test to disclose a claimed element). For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Thomas does not “mention instruction sets” or “anything related to an instruction set.” PO Resp. 36–37; PO Sur-reply 17.” slip op. at 42

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

    “C. Indefiniteness Petitioner argues that proposed substitute claims 22–36 are indefinite.” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 10,607,134 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,607,134

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.