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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

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

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

    “Petitioner’s resurrected argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of § 311(b). Section 311(b) provides: “A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed cancel the claims of the ’329 patent on the basis of Badros, Harkins, and Krassner. Pet. 11. Petitioner did not base its request, in whole or in part, on the Krassner publication. Id. Krassner clearly is a patent. It issued on August 13, 2019, far too late to be § 102(b) prior art. Even if we assume Krassner is also a “printed publication” withing the meaning of § 311(b), the same date would apply: August 13, 2019. Petitioner has not presented any evidence that the document that is Krassner was published prior to when it issued on August 13, 2019. That another document (the Krassner publication), which published much earlier, may contain the same or similar disclosure is not relevant to when Krassner was patented or published. In sum, Krassner is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). b) Whether Krassner is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Although Krassner is not prior under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b), we” slip op. at 13

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

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

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

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

  Patent outcomesUS 11,443,329 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,443,329
• Sony Group Corp. (Japan) / Sony Corp. Of America et al. v. MZ Audio Sciences, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 8, 2024 · IPR2022-01544 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish sufficient reasons to combine the references in any of the three obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field with coursework in signal processing, plus two years of academic and/or industry experience in signal processing or a related field. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioners’ definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 2. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art, other references of record, and the ’961 patent specification.” slip op. at 7

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

    “district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, claim terms have their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Petitioner relies on the plain and ordinary meaning and contends that it is unnecessary to construe any claim terms explicitly. See Pet. 8 (citing 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b)). Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner that, for purposes of this Response only, all terms of the ᾽961 patent have their plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 23. As Petitioner contends, it is not necessary Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Dr. Scordilis. Based on the record, Petitioner fails to provide a sufficient reason to arrive at the claimed invention and satisfy the burden of showing obviousness. As Patent Owner essentially argues, Cabot (and all references relied upon by Petitioner and Dr. Scordilis) do not pertain to “quantizing a phase difference of the at least one overtone relative to the fundamental tone to embed at least one bit of the data to be embedded” as step 1C-2 requires. See PO Resp. 32–33. Petitioner also relies on Kudumakis to modify Srinivasan in asserting that step 1C-2 would have been obvious, but Petitioner’s reliance on Kudumakis is also faulty as explained below. See Pet. 22–27 (relying on Ex. 1006 (Cabot), Ex. 1007 (Kudumakis); Ex. 1028 (Risset), Ex. 1031 (Lipshitz), Ex. 1055 (“Cox-SSSW”); Ex. 1020 (“Cox- 1995” ); Ex. 1021 (“Wu”)). articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a sufficient reason to modify Srinivasan’s frequencies to embed a quantized phase difference between a fundamental and its harmonic into the harmonic as step 1C-2 requires. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988 (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“teachings of references can be combined only if there is some suggestion or incentive to do so”) (quoting ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). As noted above, Dr. Scordilis states that Cabot merely “opens the venue for exploration” for an artisan of ordinary skill to “try to . . . explore” watermarks. Ex. 2011, 75:16–22. Dr. Scordolis’s testimony relates to an “obvious to try” rationale, but neither Dr. Scordilis’s testimony, nor Petitioner’s showing, satisfies the conditions to support that rationale. In particular, Dr. Scordilis does not testify, and Petitioner does not show, that the technique of embedding phase difference codes into a harmonic relative to its fundamental was one of “a finite number of identified, predictable solutions” and a “known option[]” for hiding data. Cf. KSR, 550 U.S. at 402 (indicating that under an “obvious to try” rationale, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “The record supports Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr Scordilis’s testimony. Dr. Scordilis does not rely on any references that “have a frequencies specifically.” See Ex. 2011, 90:4–8 (testifying such references are “[n]ot in [his] report”). Moreover, Dr. Scordilis testifies that “[t]he value . . . of Cabot’s work is that he points to the fact that even in this very controlled experiment, although phase is detectable in an A/B type of setup under many, many repetitions, it really opens the venue for exploration that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would try to capitalize and explore further to develop a watermark.” Id. at 75:16–22 (emphasis added). In summary, Dr. Scordilis testifies that no references (including Cabot) cited in his declaration discuss phase encoding of a harmonic phase relative to a fundamental phase for watermarking, and Cabot merely opens the door so that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “try to . . . explore further to develop a watermark” using harmonic phase coding data. Id.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,289,961 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,289,961
• Apple Inc. v. Scramoge Technology Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00118 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Hasegawa under § 103 because Hasegawa did not disclose the separately claimed connection terminals.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We turn first to the language of the claim. Claim 6 recites a coil, a first connection terminal connected to an outer end of the coil and a second connection terminal connected to an inner end of the coil (claim limitations 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3). Claim 6 further recites a connecting unit (claim limitation 6.5) comprising a third connection terminal connected to the first connection terminal, a fourth connection terminal connected to the first connection terminal, and a wiring layer connected to the third connection terminal (claim limitations 6.6, 6.7, and 6.8). Claim 6 does not explicitly recite a connection between the coil and the connecting unit, except through the first and second terminals, i.e., the first and second connection terminals are connected to the outer and inner ends of the coil and the third and fourth connection terminals of the connecting unit, respectively. The Specification informs us that “the coil unit 200 (subject matter not recited in the claim) may include first connection terminal 210, a second connection terminal 220 and a coil 230” and that “first connection terminal 210 is located at one end of the coil 230 and the second connection terminal is provided at the other end of the coil 230.” Ex. 1001, 4:57–63. The Specification further states “[t]he first and second connection terminals 210 and 220 are necessary for connection with the connecting unit 300.” Id. at 4:66–67. The claim recites the first and second connection terminals are connected to the coil; and the Specification describes the first and second connection terminals 210, 220 as being part of coil unit 200, a structure different from coil 230. The Specification does not describe an embodiment in which the first and second connection terminals are not part of a coil unit that is separate from the connecting unit. Therefore, we do not read claim 6 to encompass an embodiment in which the first and second connection terminals are part of the coil itself or are part of a connecting unit that is directly connected to the coil without a separate coil unit in between them.. A reading of the claim that is consistent with the claim language and the Specification also requires we read claim 6 to require that the coil and the connecting unit are separate.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The fundamental premise of Petitioner’s argument is inconsistent with our claim construction. Section V supra. Petitioner acknowledges that in Hasegawa the entire line 34, 35 (not just the ends) is a part of the connecting unit. Pet. 31; Reply 2; Hr’g. Tr. 10:1–14:15. In Hasegawa, then, all the connection terminals (the first, second, third and fourth terminals) are on the connecting unit. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Hasegawa does not disclose the claimed first and second connection terminals connected to the coil as separate and distinct from the claimed “connecting unit” that overlaps the receiving space. Petitioner has thus failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 6 is unpatentable. 3. Independent Claim 16 Independent claim 16 is similar to claim 6, except that instead of limiting the location of the connecting unit to “overlapping the receiving space in a vertical direction perpendicular to the adhesive layer,” as recited in claim 6, claim 16 recites only that the connecting unit is “disposed corresponding to the receiving space.” The difference between claims 6 and 16 does not bear on the parties’ arguments or on the substance of our analysis concerning the disclosures in Hasegawa. See Pet. 38–42. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that challenged claim 16 is unpatentable over Hasegawa.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Having reviewed the arguments of the parties and the supporting evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Having determined that no challenged claims are unpatentable, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend as moot.” slip op. at 2

  Patent outcomesUS 10,804,740 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,804,740
• Corning Optical Communications LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00762 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,826,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,826,508
• Corning Optical Communications LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 19, 2022 · IPR2021-00408 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are not unpatentable because Petitioner did not show that Kummetz-464 discloses the claimed QoS of network traffic used to reconfigure sectors.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we concluded that one of ordinary skill would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering; and (2) a minimum of 3-4 years of industry experience in wireless communications networks and engineering. Dec. on Inst. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). We additionally concluded that “an individual with an advanced degree in electrical engineering would require less industry experience (e.g., 1-2 years),” and that “the person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would additionally possess some experience with or knowledge of DAS.” 6 The record does not include any evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness. court action), 100:15–102:8). Patent Owner notes its agreement with this conclusion, and its expert adopted it. PO Resp. 22; Ex. 2023 ¶ 5. Petitioner provides no further comment in its post-institution briefing. After considering the record, we conclude that the same level of skill we adopted in the Decision on Institution should apply. This level of skill comports with the disclosures of the ’454 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “As noted in the Decision on Institution, a claim construction order issued in the related district court action in the final week of the period set forth for institution. Id. at 16 n.11. This claim construction order adopts Petitioner’s proposed definition. Ex. 1017, 14–21. has not established that Kummetz-464 teaches the determination of a QoS of network traffic. Thus, we need not resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner that the relative concentration of devices is a function of the number of users, which is a KPI. See Pet. 31; Ex. 1003 ¶ 95. But we determine Petitioner fails to establish the relative concentration of devices is a quality of service of a network traffic. Petitioner’s declarant describes QoS as a function of KPIs without more, and asserts that the relative concentration of devices between coverage zones would be a QoS. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–103 (concluding that “Kummetz[-464] discloses that the controller 108 can determine one or more traffic indicators (i.e., KPIs) and a function of the traffic indicators (i.e., QoS = function of the one or more KPI” and “network performance is expressed by a number of KPIs which leads to the QoS”). While Petitioner’s declarant describes this as consistent with the teachings of the ’454 patent relating to adjusting traffic loads, no explanation is provided as to how capacity (as in Kummetz-464’s example) would meet the requirement of a QoS of network traffic, and no further testimony or evidence was adduced regarding what one of ordinary skill in the art would have thought QoS to mean. See id. We credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that the plain meaning of “QoS” requires that the QoS be a value that indicates network performance.7 Ex. 2023 ¶ 55. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not establish Kummetz-464 discloses that a concentration of wireless devices is indicates network performance. See PO Resp. 43. As noted by Patent Owner during oral argument, “[y]ou can have perfect information of relative concentration of devices and still not know anything about network traffic.” Tr. 36. Patent Owner provides an example of a church service in which there are a large number of users (large concentration of user devices), but no traffic. Tr. 38. Conversely, we observe that a small concentration of user devices may have a large impact on network performance if engaged in activities requiring heavy network traffic usage. 7 We respectfully disagree with the dissent that the specification requires a different interpretation. The ’454 patent describes a QoS as a weighted combination of three KPIs (cost factors) that indicates network performance. See Ex. 1001 11:48–50, 14:41–51. This supports Patent Owner’s position that the plain and ordinary meaning of quality of service (QoS) indicates network performance. Although the KPIs discussed are exemplary, to fall within the bounds of claim 1, the plain meaning of quality of service of a network traffic requires the function to indicate network performance (i.e., the “quality” of the network). be a function of KPIs, but it is not a QoS according to the plain meaning of that term, and is not “of a network traffic” because it may be unrelated to network traffic. Thus, Petitioner fails to persuade us that Kummetz-464’s description of a concentration of wireless devices discloses a quality of service of a network traffic. We further determine that Petitioner fails to establish Kummetz-464’s” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 10,506,454 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,506,454
• Ebay Inc. v. Masterobjects, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00740 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15–17, 21, 24–26, and 32–37 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish the claimed usability test.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the types of problems encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers in the field. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 9

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

    “interpreted according to their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent” in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2141–46 (2016). We interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “1. Overview of Kravets (Ex. 1003) Petitioner asserts Kravets is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 15. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion that Kravets is prior art. Kravets issued from a patent application filed January 31, 2000. Ex. 1003, [22]. Based on the earliest possible priority date of the ’024 patent (see supra Section I.C), for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we conclude that Kravets is prior art to the ’024 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “display to the user includes 1) PSS 40 identifying a first set of search terms, which preferably comprises 500 search terms, where the first n characters of each search term matches the n-character input string in the request (Ex. 1003, 6:17–36); and 2) PSS 40 selecting a second set of search terms, such as 6 terms, from the first set of search terms by selecting the 6 terms that have the highest value scores (Ex. 1003, 7:26–40). This disclosure does not describe a client object testing for usability by checking that a return message corresponds to the latest query. First, this disclosure relates to actions performed by the server, rather than the client. Id. at 6:17–36, 7:26–40 (describing PSS 40 performing this technique). But claim 1 requires the client object perform the test for usability. Ex. 1001, 32:2–3 (“the client object tests the usability of the results in the return message”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,539,024 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,539,024

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.