• Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00950 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable; claims 15–22 were shown unpatentable over Markel. The revised contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In carefully and faithfully wrangling the parties’ views and explanation as to the meaning of limitation [1.c.iii], we conclude that Petitioner’s “correct interpretation” of that limitation is that a first pad is recognized as a distinct structure or component from a first portion of an enclosure, and that the pad is positioned underneath that first portion in a manner such that the pad is concealed from a user. We adopt that interpretation. We determine that it is unnecessary to discuss an express construction for any other term to resolve this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 19

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Nevertheless, our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner makes a more persuasive case as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood from Markel’s disclosure. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that the record before us readily conveys that a skilled artisan would have followed Markel’s practice of forming or molding electrodes from conductive plastic rather than locating a separate electrode component underneath a conductive plaster layer. See, e.g., PO Resp. 30–31 (“[a] POSITA would find nothing in cited portions of Markel to inform or encourage placement of an electrode underneath an exterior layer.”). Indeed, as Patent Owner articulates, Petitioner “fails to provide any reasoning as to why a POSITA would have found Markel’s method of concealment to be deficient, or why a POSITA would have been motivated in light of Markel’s manner of concealment to nevertheless place an electrode underneath the exterior portion of the device.” Id. To that end, we credit Dr. Kenny’s supporting testimony as consistent with Markel’s express teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–83; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 81–88. We credit that testimony over the countervailing testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Berger (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122, 135–139), as we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Berger’s testimony “is not supported by Markel’s actual disclosures.” PO Resp. 31.” slip op. at 33

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

    “Petitioner does not appear to disagree that Markel, itself, does not convey that an electrode, or any structure identifiable as a “pad,” is positioned underneath any surface of any enclosure. Rather, Petitioner’s theory of unpatentability is premised on modification of Markel to so position such a pad. Although seemingly acknowledging that Markel contemplates a concealment technique involving molding an electrode into an exterior surface, Petitioner extrapolates from that disclosure that a skilled artisan would be motivated to try an alternative means of concealing an electrode pad by placing the pad underneath an outer layer or portion, i.e., “audio output portion 610.” See Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 135). Neither Petitioner, nor Dr. Kenny, however, meaningfully explains why a skilled artisan would have deviated from Markel’s express teachings of concealing an electrode via molding techniques to then arrive at an entirely different concealment approach of placing an electrode pad underneath the audio output portion. Petitioner’s modification proposal in that regard appears borne of hindsight bias based on the disclosure of the ’257 patent rather than any dutiful consideration of what Markel’s actual teachings would have conveyed to a skilled artisan. See Ex. 2004 ¶ 84 (Dr. Kenny explaining why Petitioner’s proposed modification to Markel to hide the electrode underneath a plastic conductive layer was based on improper hindsight). Such hindsight bias is impermissible. See, e.g., Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner makes a more persuasive case as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have understood from Markel’s disclosure. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner that the record before us readily conveys that a skilled artisan would have followed Markel’s practice of forming or molding electrodes from conductive plastic rather than locating a separate electrode component underneath a conductive plaster layer. See, e.g., PO Resp. 30–31 (“[a] POSITA would find nothing in cited portions of Markel to inform or encourage placement of an electrode underneath an exterior layer.”). Indeed, as Patent Owner articulates, Petitioner “fails to provide any reasoning as to why a POSITA would have found Markel’s method of concealment to be deficient, or why a POSITA would have been motivated in light of Markel’s manner of concealment to nevertheless place an electrode underneath the exterior portion of the device.” Id. To that end, we credit Dr. Kenny’s supporting testimony as consistent with Markel’s express teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 77–83; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 81–88. We credit that testimony over the countervailing testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Berger (see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122, 135–139), as we agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Berger’s testimony “is not supported by Markel’s actual disclosures.” PO Resp. 31.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,076,257
• Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00966 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not explain whether the component limitations invoke § 112(f) or identify corresponding structure, as required by Rule 42.104(b)(3).

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide[1,2](“CTPG”) . . . instructs that “[w]here claim language may be construed according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), a petitioner must provide a construction.” CTPG 45 (emphases added) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)). The CTPG advises that a party “may choose to elaborate why § 112(f) should or should not apply to the limitation at issue.” Id. Notably, the CTPG warns that “[a] petitioner who chooses not to address construction under § 112(f) risks failing to satisfy the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3).” Id.” slip op. at 6

  • BurdenDenied

    “Given these facts, we determine that rule 104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition either identify “the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function” recited in the “component” term limitations or explain why the “component” term limitations are not subject to a means-plus-function construction. This, it fails to do. To be clear, we note that our rules do not prohibit a petitioner from taking inconsistent claim construction positions before the Board and a district court. See 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Labs, Inc., IPR2020- 00086, Paper 8 at 18 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2020). However, where, as here, a petitioner has proposed a claim term be construed solely as a means-plus-function limitation in a district court proceeding and emphasized that the issue is not only “most significant” but potentially “case . . . dispositive,” we determine the petition is obliged to either apply that construction in this proceeding or explain why that construction is not applicable. Accordingly, we find the Petition to be deficient under rule 104(b)(3).4” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Other

    “connote a definite structure. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350 (identifying words such as “mechanism,” “element,” “device,” and others as verbal constructs that do not connote sufficiently definite structures). Indeed, the Specification discloses all of the “components” recited in claims 1, 8, and 15, including the “comparing component,” can be “implemented as a computer having tangible computer-readable media for carrying or having computer-executable instructions or data structures stored thereon.” Ex. 1001, 5:35–43. Thus, like the word “module,” a recognized nonce word, each of the recited “components” is nothing more than “a generic description for software or hardware that performs a specified function” and their recitation “operate[s] as a substitute for ‘means’ in the context of § 112, para. 6.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350. Accordingly, we construe the “comparing component” limitation recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 as a meansplus-function limitation whose function is “generating a comparison signal.”2” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelNot reached
  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Markman
  Patents in suitUS 9,333,946
• Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00952 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–18 because the Petition failed to satisfy 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) by omitting required claim-construction analysis.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • BurdenDenied

    “Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Under these facts we determine that 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) mandates that the Petition “identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.” The Petition failed to do so. At a minimum, the Petition should have explained why the plain and ordinary meaning of the “component” terms should apply in this proceeding (why the inconsistent positions are warranted) or set forth an alternative means-plus-function claim construction. CTPG 45.” slip op. at 8

  Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Markman
  Patents in suitUS 8,989,952
• Maplebear Inc. D/B/A Instacart v. Consumeron, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-00865 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 103 over Carr and Lauka, with additional references for the dependent-claim grounds, because the challenged claims lack priority support in the ’848 application.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Instacart submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of electronic commerce” and that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–25). Consumeron responds that one skilled in the art would have been “someone with a background in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like” and that “industry experience can make up for a lack of technical training, and more education can make up for a lack of industry experience.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 19–23). But, as Consumeron’s expert acknowledges, Consumeron’s proposed definition “is not materially different” from Instacart’s. See Ex. 2016 ¶ 22. Accordingly, while we adopt the level of skill in the art as defined by Instacart our findings and analysis would be the same under Consumeron’s proposal.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “8 Consumeron argues Dr. Houh’s testimony should be given little weight because he “admitted he did not evaluate what the ’848 Application reasonably conveys to a skilled artisan.” Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2011, 74:8– 76:6, 83:4–84:1, 92:22–95:5). We disagree. Dr. Houh’s testimony indicates that he properly considered what the ’848 application reasonably conveys to a POSITA. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52, 56, 58, 61, 65. The portions of his cross-examination testimony cited by Consumeron do not suggest otherwise. For the reasons explained below, we credit Dr. Houh’s testimony over the competing interpretations offered by Consumeron and Dr. Mitzenmacher. 9 The dissent criticizes the majority’s analysis as “overly narrow” and too focused on the preferred embodiment. See Dissent 7–8. We disagree. Our analysis considers the entirety of the ’848 application, including all of the passages cited by Consumeron and the dissent.” slip op. at 13

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “But it does not follow that an agent encountering a stock-out would necessarily respond according to the specific steps recited in claims 1 and 14.10 For example, instead of sending information about a replacement product, the agent could travel to another location to look for the same product, or notify the customer that the desired product could not be found and terminate the transaction. Because the ’848 application only contemplates scenarios where a product can be located, it does not describe the agent’s response in the event the identified product cannot be located or is unavailable, much less reasonably convey possession of a method comprising the specific, responsive steps in claims 1 and 14.11” slip op. at 17

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “construed the terms “acquisition request” and “acquiring” in our final written decision in the related 1357 IPR to encompass “not only a request for a delivery agent to shop for and purchase goods, but also a request for the agent to pick up or obtain pre-paid goods.” See 1357 IPR, Paper 35 at 11. It is undisputed that the ’465 patent at issue here and the ’835 patent at issue in the 1357 IPR are related and share essentially identical specifications, figures, and claim terms. See Pet. Reply 16; PO Resp. 38 n.6. Thus, for the same reasons as in our final written decision in the related 1357 IPR, we likewise determine here that Instacart’s construction of “acquisition request” is the correct one. See SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Where multiple patents ‘derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.’” (quoting NTP, Inc., v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Consumeron provides no persuasive justification for us to depart from our prior reasoning in the related 1357 IPR.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 11,238,465 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,238,465
• Nintendo Co., Ltd. / Nintendo Of America Inc. v. Gamevice, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00643 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Willner and Park; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The main distinction between Petitioner’s ordinarily skilled artisan and Patent Owner’s is that Patent Owner’s definition requires “a mechanical engineering degree” whereas Petitioner’s definition allows for a degree in “mechanical, electrical, or computer engineering.” See Pet. Reply 16 (citing Pet. 13). However, Mr. Kitchen states that he qualifies as one of ordinary skill in the art based on Patent Owner’s proffered definition “even without an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering” because he has “over 40 years of experience in the design and development of interactive products, including specifically with respect to handheld gaming devices.” Ex. 1033 ¶ 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–30). Mr. Kitchen asserts that his experience is in “the same category of products claimed in the ’393 patent and described in the prior art references at issue in this proceeding.” Id. In view of this and based on the complete record before us, we view the parties’ proposals as substantially the same because Petitioner’s proposed definition includes the requisite education Patent Owner’s definition requires. Thus, we find (as we did in the Institution Decision) that Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’393 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 20–21 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). More particularly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the education component for the level of ordinary skill in the art for computing gaming devices would be limited to just mechanical engineering. We note that, based on the record and evidence before us, our decision and analysis would be the same applying either party’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “After reviewing the full record, we determine that it is unnecessary to construe the term “confinement structures,” as it appears in the limitation “a pair of confinement structures” to reach a determination in this proceeding. Realtime Data, 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)). However, we will address the parties’ dispute regarding whether the prior art discloses or teaches physical component(s) that hold(s) a computing device within our merits analysis below. The parties do not dispute the construction of any other claim terms and we find that no other terms require express construction to resolve the controversy between the parties. Accordingly, we do not construe any other claim terms expressly. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (“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., 200 F.3d at 803).” slip op. at 12

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

    “First, the test for obviousness “is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, . . . but rather whether ‘a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Pet. Reply 11–12 (arguing the same). Second, we disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that the proposed combination would fail “to retain[] computing device 10 in position during normal user operation” because Park’s adjustable bridge “configuration does not allow mobile phone (1) to be seated for stability in the device.” PO Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 42; Ex. 2004 ¶ 68). At the outset, we note that Patent Owner’s argument mischaracterizes the disclosure of Park. Instead, we find Park discloses that a “basic configuration of [Park’s] game pad device for a mobile phone according to the present invention” “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 25, 41. Although Park discloses that “mobile phone (1) may come loose during gaming or become detached in severe cases” (id. ¶ 41), we do not view this disclosure to otherwise negate Park’s teaching that its adjustable bridge (30,40) “sufficiently allows mobile phone (1) to be mounted on the device according to the present invention and used.” Id. We credit Mr. Kitchen’s declaration testimony to that effect. See Ex. 1033 ¶ 47 (declaring that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “understood this disclosure to mean that a computing device (mobile phone) would have been secured by the device for normal use . . . as part of a handheld gaming device.”).” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner and find more credible Mr. Kitchen’s opinion regarding “normal user operation.” In doing so, we credit Mr. Kitchen’s opinion that Willner’s sidewalls would “function to secure the sides of the computing device and hold it in place” and, “[i]n the combination, Park’s bridge would be adjusted to reduce the length of the bridge and thereby ‘mount’ a computing device by having Willner’s side walls (confinement structures) ‘apply pressure’ to opposing sides of the computing device.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154–156 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38–41). We note that the ’393 patent operates in a similar manner using a sufficient compressive load to hold a computing device. More particularly, the ’393 patent discloses that [t]he expansion and contraction of the distance between the pair of confinement structures 316, facilitates placement of the computing device 302 between the pair of confinement structures 316, the application of sufficient compressive load being placed on the computing device 302 to securely hold the computing device between the pair of confinement structures 316. Ex. 1001, 10:11–20. Thus, we find Mr. Kitchen’s opinion credible and supported by the complete record. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Willner and Park teaches or suggests “a pair of confinement structures,” as recited by limitation 1[b][1].” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,391,393 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,391,393
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00745 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 8–22 were not shown unpatentable because Mills did not disclose the required embedded structure and Markel combined with Mills did not teach it; the revised motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend asserts that in “the event the Board finds at least one challenged [Revised Motion to Amend] claim unpatentable, [Patent Owner] respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion with respect to the corresponding proposed substitute claim(s).” Paper 27, 1. Because we determine that Petitioner has not established that any of the challenged claims 1–4 and 8–22 are unpatentable, Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend is moot.” slip op. at 61

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is somewhat broader in both education and proposed work experience. Patent Owner’s proposed work experience is somewhat vague and potentially outside the scope of the claimed invention. For example, the requirement that the person of ordinary skill in the art have experience with the “capture and processing of data or information, including but not limited to physiological information,” would seemingly encompass data processing areas that do not relate to the scope of the claimed invention. We adopt Petitioner’s level of the level of ordinary skill in art because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Our analysis and the end result are the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 11

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

    “structure where a lead is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from other embodiments where a lead is merely positioned against or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 36–37. The Specification describes distinct embodiments such as “lead 472 of the heart sensor can be positioned against the back surface of bezel 460,” or “[a]lternatively, lead 472 can be placed within the thickness of bezel 460 (e.g., in a pocket within the bezel wall), but underneath the outer surface of the bezel.” Ex. 9:44–48. We agree with Patent Owner, and Dr. Kenny, that “[t]his passage distinguishes a lead that is embedded in a portion of the enclosure from a lead that is merely ‘positioned against’ or in parallel contact with a portion of the enclosure.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 33–35). See also Ex. 2008, 31:10–33:18, 109:18–110:19 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Oslan, suggesting that a first component or object in parallel contact with and positioned under a second component or object would not necessarily indicate that the first component or object is embedded in the second component or object). Similarly, we also agree that “the claims of the ’257 use the term ‘embedded in’ while also using the word ‘embedded’ in other contexts, which” indicates distinct claim scope for “the term ‘embedded in,’” versus “the broader term ‘embedded.’” Ex. 2003 ¶ 38. For instance, claim 9 distinctly requires “embedded with,” which is a broader term that, according to Dr. Kenny, encompasses embodiments where a lead may be adjacent/parallel to the first portion of the enclosure. Id.” slip op. at 18

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

    “under the exterior of the first portion” (see Pet. 21–22, 24–25; Pet. Reply 4); and (3) leaf spring 62 is embedded in housing 12 and electrode 14 (see Pet. 22–24). None of Petitioner’s mappings disclose every element of claim 1 and Petitioner improperly jumps between these various mappings without fully examining a single mapping for each and every limitation of claim 1. See Pet. 18–25. In essence, Petitioner invites the Board to piece together a single theory that meets all claim elements from these disparate theories that each require distinct structure within Mills. See Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD., IPR2017-01112, Paper 11, at 13 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2017) (“Petitioner is inviting us to assume the role of archeologist of the record, which invitation we decline.”).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,076,257 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,076,257
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00734 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 over the combinations of prior art identified in the eight grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Cf. PO Resp. 14 (Patent Owner stating that “[t]he analysis presented [in the Response] remains unchanged even if [Petitioner’s proposed] skill level is applied.”). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for certain terms concerning the cover material—“a cover formed from a dielectric material,” “a transparent substrate,” and “a cover comprising a non-conductive material”—and window terms such as “defines at least one window” and “window defined.” Pet. 7–10. Patent Owner states that it does not take a position regarding Petitioner’s offered constructions. PO Resp. 15. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make the proposed combination and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making that combination. See, e.g., PO Resp. 34–35. These arguments are not persuasive at least because Patent Owner’s motivation requirement and implied definition of success are not sufficiently tied to the claimed invention. See, e.g., Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Reasonable expectation of success refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner would require a successful outcome to be “quick and efficient wireless charging.” See PO Resp. 34–35. In making these arguments, Patent Owner is improperly superimposing the purported goals and purpose of Honda, the secondary reference, onto the ordinary artisan. See, e.g., id. at 41–45. However, the intended purpose of a prior art reference does not control the obviousness inquiry. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Our reviewing court recently explained: The [motivation-to-combine] inquiry is not whether a relevant artisan would combine a first reference’s feature with a second reference’s feature to meet requirements of the first reference that are not requirements of the claims at issue. A contrary view would run counter to established principles, including that the claim defines the invention whose obviousness is being assessed and that a skilled artisan may be motivated to combine particular features of different references, e.g., to secure some benefits at the expense of others, even when bodily incorporation would be impossible or inadvisable. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner’s combination yields the benefit of the addition of wireless charging capability to a biosensor device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that benefit to be a motivating reason to make the combination. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 176 (Dr. Duckworth’s motivation opinion based, in part, on “Kotanagi’s own statement that its rechargeable battery can be recharged ‘in a contactless state.’”); id. ¶ 149 (Dr. Duckworth describing a motivating factor in “Honda’s teaching of a wireless receive coil near a rear opening similar to that taught in Kotanagi (where both Honda’s and Kotanagi’s openings have a cover glass)” and opining that, in the proposed modifications, “the resulting magnetic flux would pass through the cover glass, as taught by Honda”); see also Ex. 1052, 45:16–46:2 (Dr. Anthony, on cross-examination and after being asked whether wireless charging is an improvement over wired charging for a consumer watch, responding that “in some instances it could be, and in others it may not be.”). And, as to a reasonable expectation of success, Patent Owner admits that “Petitioner has presented a device configuration in which a wireless charging coil could be provided in Kotanagi’s through hole 22.” PO Resp. 54; see also id. at 3 (Patent Owner arguing that “the size of coil that could be provided in this allegedly available space would be small and would significantly limit the amount of wireless power signal transmission,” but not arguing that even Patent Owner’s purported size-limited configuration would be inoperative); see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 155–156 (Dr. Duckworth credibly testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kotanagi and Honda).” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “would limit the size and positioning of a charging coil, and that the purported combination, as characterized by Patent Owner, would result in a “significantly degrad[ed] wireless charging efficiency” of Honda’s coil. PO Resp. 41–42; see id. at 36–45, id. at 55 (Patent Owner arguing that, “given the size restrictions imposed by Kotanagi,” the housing and cover glass cannot be expanded to allow for a larger coil). Patent Owner further argues that the combination would have to be configured a certain way and that the resulting configuration would “would frustrate Honda’s goals and intended purpose.” Id. at 37–38, 40–41; see also, e.g., id. at 43–44 (Patent Owner arguing that the combination, as characterized by Patent Owner, would inject noise and interference that are contrary to Honda’s goals of quick and efficient power transmission). We do not agree with this line of argument. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The person of ordinary skill in the art is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As the Supreme Court recognized in KSR, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” 550 U.S. at 421. Dr. Duckworth persuasively testifies that, “if, under the relevant engineering trade-offs, a POSITA wanted to increase charging speed, consistent with Honda’s teachings, Honda would have provided the motivation and information to either re-size or reshape Kotanagi’s protrusion and/or cover glass to provide for a larger coil.” Ex. 1060 ¶ 346; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–159 (“[I]t would have been feasible to make the second modification option discussed above: to enlarge Kotanagi’s opening and cover glass to make room for a coil behind the cover glass, surrounding the LED and PD.”); Ex. 2039, 47:5–10 (“[A] POSITA would view Honda’s teachings to either modify Kotanagi to position wireless charging coil behind Kotanagi’s cover glass or enlarge the Kotanagi’s opening and cover glass to make room for a coil behind the cover glass.”); PO Resp. 44 (Patent Owner admitting that Honda teaches that metal is inferior for power transmission and “[t]his is precisely why Honda seeks to provide glass for its rear cover.”). And, although the references express certain goals, Patent Owner does not adequately identify any disclosure in either reference that disparages Petitioner’s articulated combination. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.”). Even if, as Patent Owner argues, the proposed combination would not quickly charge the device, this is not dispositive. Dr. Anthony agrees that “[d]evices, depending on their use and their function, can benefit from either fast charge or trickle charge or a little bit of charge.” Ex. 1052, 19:3–6. “It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” Intel Corp., 21 F.4th at 800 (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[J]ust because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.”); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”). Based upon the final record before us, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider even a slow charging configuration to be a suitable option.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 10,942,491 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,942,491
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00634 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6–8, 11–13, and 16 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Cf. PO Resp. 16 (Patent Owner stating that “[t]he analysis presented [in the Response] remains unchanged even if [Petitioner’s proposed] skill level is applied.”). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We find Patent Owner’s position to be persuasive. Not only are the cover and biosensor module recited separately in the list of components of the device of claim 9, we also agree that the “disposed over” claim language establishes the configuration of two separate components relative to each other. Additionally, the claim language that requires the cover to be “configured to pass optical signals to and from the biosensor module” supports an interpretation where the cover is separate from the biosensor module, otherwise it seemingly would be passing signals to and from itself. The understanding that the cover is separate from the biosensor module in claim 9 is consistent with the Specification’s description of an embodiment that tracks the language of claim 9 and speaks of the two elements as separate, individual components, namely the statement that “[a] biosensor module may be disposed within the opening of the housing” and “[a] rear cover may be disposed over the biosensor module.” Ex. 1001, 2:59–62; see also id. at 2:56 (the same paragraph beginning with “Some embodiments . . .”). Petitioner asserts that its proposed construction is consistent with the claim language, arguing that “the word ‘cover’ naturally suggests that its role is to be ‘disposed over,’” and that “[a] cover can be part of a module just as a clear plastic lid can be both disposed over, and part of, a container, allowing a view of its contents.” Pet. Reply 4. We disagree with Petitioner’s analogy. Although a clear lid may be over a jar, it cannot be said to be “disposed over” the container consisting of both the jar and the lid because it then would be disposed over itself.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Patent Owner argues that the proposed combination will result in a configuration “that is contrary to Honda’s teachings and its stated goals and purpose of achieving quick and efficient wireless charging.” PO Resp. 30– 31. Patent Owner’s focus on these properties is misplaced. We agree with Petitioner that characteristics such as charging speed and efficiency are not claimed. See Pet. Reply 1 (“[T]he ’783 patent does not disclose, let alone claim, sizing or other details [Patent Owner] Apple asserts are necessary for successful wireless charging.”); id. at 6 (“[C]harging speed [is] not claimed.”). Rather, the claim drafter utilized broad language to encompass a biosensor device having the capability to wireless charge through a cover— both good configurations and those that Patent Owner argues are inferior. And, even if the proposed combination does not yield a commercially viable product, as Patent Owner implies, the broad claim scope would hinder an innovating competitor’s ability to utilize and test that purported less desirable combination on the way to development of a better device. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make the proposed combination and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making that combination. See, e.g., PO Resp. 31. These arguments are not persuasive at least because Patent Owner’s motivation requirement and implied definition of success are not sufficiently tied to the claimed invention. See, e.g., Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Reasonable expectation of success refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner would require a successful outcome to be “quick and efficient wireless charging.” See PO Resp. 31. In making these arguments, Patent Owner is improperly superimposing the purported goals and purpose of Honda, the secondary reference, onto the ordinary artisan. See, e.g., id. at 37–41. However, the intended purpose of a prior art reference does not control the obviousness inquiry. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Our reviewing court recently explained: The [motivation-to-combine] inquiry is not whether a relevant artisan would combine a first reference’s feature with a second reference’s feature to meet requirements of the first reference that are not requirements of the claims at issue. A contrary view would run counter to established principles, including that the claim defines the invention whose obviousness is being assessed and that a skilled artisan may be motivated to combine particular features of different references, e.g., to secure some benefits at the expense of others, even when bodily incorporation would be impossible or inadvisable. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner’s combination yields the benefit of the addition of wireless charging capability to a biosensor device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that benefit to be a motivating reason to make the combination. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 121 (Dr. Duckworth’s motivation opinion based, in part, on “Kotanagi’s own statement that its rechargeable battery can be recharged ‘in a contactless state.’”); id. ¶ 127 (Dr. Duckworth’s describing a motivating factor in Honda’s explanation “that this [charging] station passes wireless power to the wireless charging receiving coil through a rear cover glass (similar to that of Kotanagi), using the physics of induced currents and magnetic flux.”); see also Ex. 1052, 45:16–46:2 (Dr. Anthony, on cross-examination and after being asked whether wireless charging is an improvement over wired charging for a consumer watch, responding that “in some instances it could be, and in others it may not be.”). And, as to a reasonable expectation of success, Patent Owner admits that “Petitioner has presented a device configuration in which a wireless charging coil could be provided in Kotanagi’s through hole 22.” PO Resp. 56; see also id. at 3 (Patent Owner arguing that “the size of coil that could be provided in this allegedly available space would be small and would significantly limit the amount of wireless power signal transmission,” but not arguing that even Patent Owner’s purported size-limited configuration would be inoperative); see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130–133 (Dr. Duckworth credibly testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kotanagi and Honda).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 10,627,783 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,627,783
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00664 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not determined unpatentable because the cited combinations failed to teach or suggest the claimed selectable widget functionality and lacked a coherent rationale to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that: A POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] of the ’352 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a discipline related to human-computer interaction, such as Human Factors, Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or an equivalent discipline, and at least two years of experience working with touchscreen user interfaces. More education could substitute for less work experience, and vice-versa. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 34).” slip op. at 7

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

    “In our Decision to Institute, we construed “input that is directed to a portion of” a user interface. Paper 8, at 9; see also Pet. 24–25. Because this interpretation is not necessary for our final determination, we do not repeat it here.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Chae’s annotated Figure 6(b) “illustrates unlocking the second SIM (SIM2) according to the method for operating a mobile terminal.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 19. Ex. 1005, Fig. 6(b). Although Figure 6(b) “displays different items” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 109) such as the depictions of people (Lauran and Chris) and partly cloudy weather, Chae does not suggest that selecting these graphics causes display of an application. See PO Resp. 21. Petitioner contends that an ordinary artisan would have understood that selecting one of Chae’s graphics items must cause display of an application (see Pet. 55; Pet. Reply 11), but Chae does not teach or suggest this feature. As Dr. Cockburn persuasively testifies, “nothing in Chae indicates that the icons displayed in Figure 6(b) are dynamic or change in any way in response to content in the corresponding applications, and that the icons when selected causes display of the corresponding applications.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46. The mere possibility that Chae’s generic graphical objects could perform a function is speculation because nothing in Chae teaches that selecting that graphical object would display a corresponding application. See id. The display of icons in Figure 6(b) does not inform the person of ordinary skill in the art whether the item has to indicate or contain content from an underlying application, and also whether it is selectable to get to that corresponding application as required by the claims. See Tr. 32:21–33:3. Petitioner’s reliance of the testimony of Dr. Rosenberg (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 91) is unpersuasive because Dr. Rosenberg merely restates the Petitioner’s assertions without reliance on persuasive evidence of record. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, at 5 (Feb 10, 2023) (Vidal, Dir.) (“[T]he Board was correct in giving little weight to Petitioner’s expert because the expert declaration merely offered conclusory assertions without underlying factual support and repeated, verbatim, Petitioner’s conclusory arguments.”). When addressing Chae’s three graphics in Figure 6(b) during cross-examination, Dr. Rosenberg testifies that “[t]hey’re not a numbered element, so they’re not spoken about specifically those three ones”). Ex. 2005, 56:9–14, 54:21–22 (“Chae doesn’t talk about the weather icon”). Further, the final record does not support Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “part of the well-known functionality of widgets was that selecting a widget would cause ‘display of an application corresponding to the respective user interface object.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 91. None of the references relied upon by Petitioner discloses this alleged “well-known functionality of widgets,” nor does the evidence of record support any industry standard usage of the term widget in the appropriate timeframe. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 46–48. Petitioner has also not persuasively shown that selections of Chae’s SIM card icons result in the display of an application as claimed. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152–154, Fig. 22; see also Tr. 43:14–17 (“the claimed interface object causes display of the corresponding application, but selection of this paragraph 152, Figure 22 widget causes selection of something different, a sim environment.”). We find Patent Owner’s position more persuasive, when Chae uses the word widget, it is not using that word to refer to something that launches into an application, but instead Chae’s widgets show use-state information related to a SIM environment. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152–154; Tr. 33:3–12. Specifically, Chae discloses “widgets that show use-state information of the first and second SIMs (SIM1 and SIM2),” and “when a user selects one of [the] widgets,” it “unlocks the SIM corresponding to the dragged widget.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152, 153, Fig. 3 (unlocking SIM displays home screen customized to unlocked SIM). Chae does not support that these widgets relate to the graphic items in its Figure 6(b), nor does Chae explain how its widgets could be understood as the claimed “user interface objects” of the widget screen user interface. As explained persuasively by Dr. Cockburn, “the only widgets that are described in Chae are widgets relating to the use state of the multiple SIM cards,” and “[t]hese widgets described in Chae do not correspond to applications and thus do not cause display of applications when the widgets are selected.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 152).” slip op. at 25

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

    “Based on the final record before us, we conclude that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that the combination of prior art teaches the required widget limitation of “a respective user interface object . . . when selected, causes display of an application corresponding to the respective user interface object” as recited in claim 1. Petitioner relies on Chae’s Figure 6(b), which is reproduced below: Chae’s annotated Figure 6(b) “illustrates unlocking the second SIM (SIM2) according to the method for operating a mobile terminal.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 19. Ex. 1005, Fig. 6(b). Although Figure 6(b) “displays different items” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 109) such as the depictions of people (Lauran and Chris) and partly cloudy weather, Chae does not suggest that selecting these graphics causes display of an application. See PO Resp. 21. Petitioner contends that an ordinary artisan would have understood that selecting one of Chae’s graphics items must cause display of an application (see Pet. 55; Pet. Reply 11), but Chae does not teach or suggest this feature. As Dr. Cockburn persuasively testifies, “nothing in Chae indicates that the icons displayed in Figure 6(b) are dynamic or change in any way in response to content in the corresponding applications, and that the icons when selected causes display of the corresponding applications.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46. The mere possibility that Chae’s generic graphical objects could perform a function is speculation because nothing in Chae teaches that selecting that graphical object would display a corresponding application. See id. The display of icons in Figure 6(b) does not inform the person of ordinary skill in the art whether the item has to indicate or contain content from an underlying application, and also whether it is selectable to get to that corresponding application as required by the claims. See Tr. 32:21–33:3.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 11,106,352 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,106,352
• Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00095 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied AliveCor’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in denying institution because the Petterson–Nakada combinations did not teach or suggest the claimed replacement of one user interface with another.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if substantial evidence does not support a factual finding, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Reh’g Req. 8 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)). Also, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) sets forth, in relevant part that: rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Our determinations regarding Nakada did not support Petitioner’s argument that Nakada’s “system is returned to the beginning state of the routine, which in the case of Petterson would be FIG. 2B.” Pet. 71; Dec. 39–40. We also stated that “the proposed combination does not address adequately Nakada’s description of powering down its display.” Id. at 40 (citing Pet. 48–50; Prelim. Resp. 25–26; Ex. 1011, Fig. 4). We, thus, determined Petitioner failed to show sufficiently that either Petterson or Nakada teaches or suggests “replacing display of the second user interface with the first user interface.” Dec. 38–41 (citing Pet. 48–50, 68–69, 70–71; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 379, 382; Ex. 1011, Fig. 4). The “totality of the combination” lacked replacing a user interface with any other user interface. Dec. 40–41 (determining “the asserted references neither individually nor combined as proposed would have, ‘in response to detecting that the first criteria are no longer met for a second period of time that is longer than the first period of time, replac[ed] display of the second user interface with the first user interface’”); Reh’g Req. 8 (arguing “the Board overlooked the totality of the combination and Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence regarding the modification of Petterson that would have been obvious . . . in view of Nakada”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “After considering the arguments and cited evidence of the Petition, we determined that Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’533 patent. Paper 7 (“Decision” or “Dec.”). Petitioner subsequently filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 8 (“Reh’g Req.”). For the reasons stated below, Petitioner has not shown that we abused our discretion in denying the Petition, and thus, Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 2

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,568,533

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.