- PTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01311 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 16–30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Genius Sports would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“a petition that presents the same or substantially the same art or arguments as were previously presented to the Office. To evaluate arguments for discretionary denial under § 325(d), the Board uses a two-part framework: 4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16, 2013. Because the challenged claims of the ’218 patent have an apparent effective filing date after March 16, 2013, the AIA version of § 103 applies. Ex. 1009, codes (22), (60), (63). Our determinations and findings herein would not change if the pre-AIA provisions applied. (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 10
- Parallel petitionsInstituted
“The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (“CTPG”), issued in November 2019, guides that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” CTPG 59. In the instant proceeding, however, we agree with Petitioner’s arguments regarding filing two petitions. For example, we find that each petition challenges different claims and that Petitioner’s division of its challenges into two petitions is supported by the length and nature of the claims. We also agree that Petitioner’s assertion of the same art minimizes the burden on the Board and the parties. Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s arguments that we should institute both petitions. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because we agree with Petitioner’s arguments with respect to the claims and the identity of the prior art used, we consider the merits of the instant petition.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. We may institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at this preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’218 patent. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’218 patent and with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience, and one to two years of experience in networking environments, including at least some experience with live-streaming network architecture. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–76). Petitioner additionally asserts that, “[a]dditional education or experience in related fields could compensate for deficits in the above qualifications.” Id. at 18. Patent Owner asserts: A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols. Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 96). The parties have not addressed whether the differences in these definitions impact the unpatentability analysis before us. We preliminarily adopt Patent Owner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art, which is more specific and appears consistent with the specification and prior art presented, but on the present record we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,039,218 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01307 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–25 and 27–30 on both obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 19–25 and 27–30 of the ’687 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience, and one to two years of experience in networking environments, including at least some experience with live-streaming network architecture.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–76). Patent Owner cites testimony from Dr. Rubin and contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have [had] a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols.” Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 103). The differences between the parties’ definitions are minor, as recognized by Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 105), and we do not discern any meaningful differences based on the preliminary record. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’687 patent and the asserted prior art. Notwithstanding, we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther
“ordinary meaning. Pet. 6. Petitioner also argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that a “socket” is “a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server where first/second event information is provided to VCDs [viewer client devices].” Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 352). Thus, Petitioner argues that an “event socket” is “a socket where information about each sporting event is provided to VCDs.” Id. Petitioner additionally proposes constructions for certain means-plus-function limitations in claims 27–30. Pet. 7–9. Regarding the means-plus-function limitations in claims 27–30, Patent Owner argues that only relevant construction pertains to this limitation of claim 27: “means for transmitting the first event information to at least the first viewer client device via a first event information communication channel that is different from the first video communication channel.” Prelim. Resp. 8–10. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s construction of this term but notes certain additional citations that Patent Owner contends supports the construction. Id. at 9–10. Otherwise, Patent Owner states that “the Board need not construe any claim terms aside from the means-plus-function limitations.” Id. at 8. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s constructions of “socket” and “event socket.” Regarding the means-plus-function limitations in claims 27–30, we apply all of Petitioner’s constructions with one exception. Specifically, based on the structure and dependency of claim 30, we determine preliminarily that the preamble of claim 30 is non-limiting and does not require construction as a means-plus-function limitation. We determine that no other aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., 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))).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“For the reasons given below, we find that Petitioner’s arguments are supported sufficiently by the evidence in the preliminary record before us at this early juncture, and that Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing. For example, we are persuaded preliminarily that Petitioner’s proposed combination would have improved latency issues in Ellis’s system. See Pet. 19–23; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 106–115. This is supported by Spivey’s disclosure that its techniques “may reduce . . . delay [on the order of seconds (e.g., 30 to 45 seconds) or minutes] to an order of milliseconds (ms) (e.g., 100 ms) or less, providing a significant advantage over the conventional practices.” Ex. 1017 ¶ 28. Spivey also discloses pushing data “to the subscribed connected client devices substantially simultaneously with the message queue server receiving the topic entry from a live data source, e.g., with a time delay of 100 milliseconds or less,” which Spivey discloses is “at least two orders of magnitude shorter than conventional time periods of legacy devices.” Id. ¶ 96; see also id. at code (57) (disclosing pushing “the topic entry to a subscribed client device substantially simultaneously with the message queue server receiving the topic entry from a live data source”). We disagree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 27) that “Petitioner manufactures a data latency problem in Ellis, without any explanation as to why a[n ordinarily skilled artisan] would understand one to exist.” The portion of Spivey cited by Petitioner describes that its techniques reduce latency, thus “providing a significant advantage over the conventional practices.” Ex. 1017 ¶ 28; see also id. ¶ 96 (describing improvements of “at least two orders of magnitude” as compared to “conventional time periods of legacy devices”). This teaching shows sufficiently, for purposes of institution, that artisans in the field would have known to consider the problem of latency in delivering live data. Moreover, Patent Owner’s argument that Ellis pertains to “viewing and tuning” and Spivey is not relevant to “how sports viewers commonly watch and interact with displayed sporting events” (Prelim. Resp. 28–29), as well as Dr. Rubin’s related testimony (Ex. 2001 § VI.A.1, ¶¶ 220–223), are based on only a subset of the teachings of both references, rather than the teachings of the references in their entirety. For example, Ellis describes providing real-time data such as sports scores (see, e.g., Ex. 1016 ¶ 41), and Spivey describes that its live data feeds are generated by computing devices associated with a live event (Ex. 1017 ¶ 37). We are mindful that the teachings of the references must be considered as a whole, from the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1361 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“What a prior art reference discloses or teaches is determined from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art.”); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (noting that when evaluating claims for obviousness, “the prior art as a whole must be considered”).” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,805,687 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01305 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 over all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would be shown obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–9 of the ’687 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsOther
“1 Of note, Petitioner concurrently filed another petition challenging claims 19–25 and 27–30 of the ’687 patent in IPR2024-01307. Pet. 3–4; Paper 3, 3. Petitioner also filed a ranking of the two petitions in which it ranked the petition in IPR2024-01307 first and the instant Petition second. Paper 3, 3. Notwithstanding, Patent Owner does not put forth any arguments seeking discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) related to Petitioner’s use of more than one petition against the ’687 patent. Moreover, we are satisfied by Petitioner’s stated reasons for filing two petitions. See Paper 3, 2–3.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience, and one to two years of experience in networking environments, including at least some experience with live-streaming network architecture.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–76). Patent Owner cites testimony from Dr. Rubin and contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have [had] a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 99). The differences between the parties’ definitions are minor, as recognized by Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 101), and we do not discern any meaningful differences based on the preliminary record. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’687 patent and the asserted prior art. Notwithstanding, we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“ordinary meaning. Pet. 6. Petitioner also argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known that a “socket” is “a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server where first event information is provided to a VCD [viewer client device].” Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 352). Thus, Petitioner argues that an “event socket” is “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to a VCD.” Id. Patent Owner states that “[e]xcept for the ‘event socket’ term for which Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s construction . . . for purposes of [its] preliminary response, Patent Owner agrees that no terms require construction and construes all other terms consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s construction of “socket” and “event socket.” We determine that no other aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., 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))).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,805,687 - Ubiquiti Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01290 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer foundTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“interview to incorporate prosecution dependent claim 2 into prosecution claim 1 and cancel prosecution dependent claim 3. See § I.F, supra. We determine that this agreement and the corresponding amendment constitutes a clear disavowal of subject matter that supports Patent Owner’s construction. Prosecution claim 2 required that the second communication frame follow the first communication frame after a SIFS (corresponding to Figure 5 of the ’122 patent), while prosecution claim 3 required that there be a SIFS and an intervening response between the first and second communication frames (corresponding to the embodiments of Figures 3 and 4 of the ’122 patent). Before the amendment, original claim 1 included both of these embodiments, but the incorporation of prosecution claim 2 into prosecution claim 1 and the cancellation of prosecution claim 3 limited issued claim 1 to only the embodiment of prosecution claim 2. Because Larsson disclosed an intervening response to the first communication frame before the second communication frame, the clear import of the amendment was to limit claim 1 to the embodiment where the second communication frame follows immediately after the SIFS in order to distinguish claim 1 from Larsson. Indeed, in the Reasons for Allowance, the examiner explained that claim 1 distinguishes over the prior art (including Larsson) because “[t]he prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest ‘receiv[ing] the second communication frame after a short inter frame space (SIFS) that follows the first communication frame,’” as added from prosecution claim 2. Ex. 1002, 47. If, as Petitioner argues, prosecution claim 2 was broad enough to cover the embodiment of prosecution claim 3, then the amendment would have served no apparent purpose. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that “[t]here is no other plausible explanation for why, when faced with Larsson’s disclosure of an intervening response, the Examiner initiated an interview to incorporate the SIFS limitation of dependent claim 2 into claim 1, and cancel dependent claim 3, which, like Larsson, included an intervening response.” See Prelim. Sur-reply 1–2.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“of the alleged invention would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in wireless communications standards and/or product development.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–26). Petitioner also states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not advance a proposed level of ordinary skill at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp.; Prelim. Sur-reply. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’122 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to show that Gu teaches that “the second communication frame follows after a short inter frame space (SIFS) after the first communication frame with the transmit announcement indication.” Ex. 1001, 7:64–67. As discussed above, we construe this limitation to require that “the second communication frame follows substantially immediately after the first communication frame (without any intervening response to the first communication frame),” as Patent Owner proposes. See § II.A, supra. Petitioner has not shown that Gu meets this construction because Gu includes an intervening response between the first and second communication frames. Consequently, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Gu and Trainin.” slip op. at 31
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2024). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314; see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on any grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,594,122 - PTAB · Mar 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01309 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–25 and 27–30, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims in both § 103 grounds would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. We may institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at this preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’697 patent and with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties have not addressed whether the differences in these definitions impact the unpatentability analysis before us. We preliminarily adopt Patent Owner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art, which is more specific and appears consistent with the specification and prior art presented, but on the present record we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). At this early stage, therefore, for the terms which are not contested (all except for the limitation 27.3 means plus function term, addressed below) we use Petitioner’s proposed constructions for the means-plus-function terms with one exception. Specifically, based on the structure and dependency of claim 30, we determine preliminarily that the preamble of claim 30 is non-limiting and does not require construction as a means-plus-function limitation. We use the ordinary and customary meaning of the other claim terms and we decline to provide an express construction of any other claim term. slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues “under” Petitioner’s proposed construction of “socket,” the Petitioner is deficient. Prelim. Resp. 39–40. At this early stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction for either “event socket” or “socket,” and, indeed, applies Petitioner’s proposed construction of “socket.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s construction of “socket” and “event socket.”” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,425,697 - PTAB · Mar 6, 2025 · IPR2024-01308 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–9 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 7–9 are obvious over Ellis and Spivey, claims 2–6 over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog, and claims 1–9 …
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. We may institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at this preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’697 patent and with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“In accordance with the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (“CTPG”), issued in November 2019, “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” CTPG 59. In the instant proceeding, however, we agree with Petitioner’s arguments regarding filing two petitions. For example, we find that each petition challenges different claims and that Petitioner’s division of its challenges into two petitions is supported by the length and nature of the claims. We also agree that Petitioner’s 1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. assertion of the same art minimizes the burden on the Board and the parties. Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s arguments that we should institute both petitions. See generally Prelim. Resp. We, therefore, consider the merits of the instant petition, and, for the reasons given below, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties have not addressed whether the differences in these definitions impact the unpatentability analysis before us. We preliminarily adopt Patent Owner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art, which is more specific and appears consistent with the specification and prior art presented, but on the present record we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“At this early stage, Petitioner’s proposed constructions of “socket” and “event socket” (Pet. 37) are not disputed by Patent Owner. Prelim. Resp. 10. Neither party provides an express construction for any other claim term. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, we use Petitioner’s proposed construction for “socket” and 4 POSA and POSITA refer to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “event socket” and the ordinary and customary meaning of the other claim terms. We decline to provide further analysis or an express construction of any other claim term as doing so is not needed to resolve the dispute between the parties.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,425,697 - Mianyang Boe Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. / Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01075 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to show claims 1–6, 10, 12, 17–19, 21–23, 40–47, 51, and 52 unpatentable because the cited art did not teach or suggest a pixel defining layer.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we again adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. It is supported by the testimony of Dr. Pattison, and appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). We find Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill to be imprecise, because Patent Owner does not specify the amount of experience possessed by an ordinarily skilled artisan. The unbounded reference to “experience” is vague and overly broad, as it could mean 1 year of experience or over 30 years of experience, for example. In addition, the ’578 patent is directed to “a pixel arrangement structure of an (OLED) [organic light emitting diode] display” (Ex. 1001, 1:22–23), whereas Patent Owner’s proposed experience is tied to “active-matrix displays.” PO Resp. 5. Given that the field of OLED displays includes both passive and active matrix designs (see generally Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 40–56), we see no reason to restrict the relevant experience to active matrix displays. For these reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner has failed to show that the cited art teaches or suggests a “pixel defining layer” as recited. Neither party in this proceeding or in the ITC Investigation argued that “pixel defining layer” as recited in the challenged claims required construction, and neither party presented any arguments regarding the construction or meaning of this term.6 Pet. 13; PO Resp. 4–5. 5 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) requires that a petition contain a statement identifying how a challenged claim is to be construed. 6 In our Decision instituting trial, we stated that “[i]f either party contends that explicit claim construction is necessary in order to make a final determination whether or not any challenged claim is unpatentable based on the arguments and evidence presented, it should clearly explain why during We give the term “pixel defining layer” as recited its plain and ordinary meaning. For purposes of this decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., 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))). D. Petitioner Has Not Shown That the Cited Art Teaches or Suggests All the” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“or suggestion in Matthies of a pixel defining layer, because there is none.” PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 187); see also PO Sur-reply 15–17. Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA would have understood that Matthies employs (or at least could obviously employ) the claimed ‘pixel defining layer.’” Pet. 23. An allegation that a skilled artisan would have understood that the prior art “could obviously” be modified to include an element of the claimed invention does not establish that the prior art teaches or suggests such recited element. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“require for the same reasons set forth above.”). And, in discussing motivation to combine the teachings of Matthies and Yamada, Petitioner articulates no reasoning to support modifying Matthies’ structure based on Yamada to yield a “pixel defining layer.” See Pet. 69–75. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Petition failed to identify any teaching or suggestion in Matthies of a pixel defining layer, because there is none.” PO Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 187); see also PO Sur-reply 15–17. Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA would have understood that Matthies employs (or at least could obviously employ) the claimed ‘pixel defining layer.’” Pet. 23. An allegation that a skilled artisan would have understood that the prior art “could obviously” be modified to include an element of the claimed invention does not establish that the prior art teaches or suggests such recited element. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 11,594,578 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,594,578 - Google LLC v. Wirelesswerx IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00850 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 are unpatentable as obvious over Wrappe and Belcea; claims 6–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Wrappe, Belcea, and Christopher.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’203 patent. Dec. on Inst. 11. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in research, design, development, and/or testing of GPS and/or positioning techniques, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Id. (citing Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 40)). Patent Owner states that it “adopt[s] Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’203 Patent as well as the asserted prior art.” PO Resp. 8. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’203 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that “[t]he most practically near node” “does not have an ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 6–7. Rather, it is defined in the Specification as “the node that is located at the closest accessible location to the movable entity,” according to Patent Owner. Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:55–67). Petitioner argues that “there is no material difference between how Petitioner and Patent Owner interpret this term, and claim construction is therefore not necessary to resolve this dispute.” Pet. Reply 2. In particular, Petitioner argues that “[t]he construction that the Patent Owner applies is that ‘the most practically near node’ is the node that is closest to the movable entity while being on the same floor as the user.” Id. (citing PO Resp. 14–15, 19–29). Petitioner argues that “[t]he Petition applies that same understanding, explaining that the combination of Wrappe and Belcea renders obvious identifying a node that is on the same floor as the user.” because “the system identifies a beacon ‘nearby’ on the same floor.” Id. (citing Pet. 38). We agree with Patent Owner that the Specification states that “[t]he most practically near node is defined as the node that is located at the closest accessible location to the movable entity.” Ex. 1001, 6:55–57. We conclude that this definition provides the proper construction for this term, and we apply it below. No construction of other terms6 is needed to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“most practically near node is defined as the node that is located at the closest accessible location to the movable entity.” Ex. 1001, 6:55–57. We conclude that this definition provides the proper construction for this term, and we apply it below. No construction of other terms6 is needed to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“router (“FIR”) is present in a stairwell and by an elevator shaft at each floor in a building. Ex. 1008 ¶ 43. Belcea926 explains that because signals lose energy when passing through floors and walls, “a FIR . . . may not be able to communicate with a [device] that is not on the same floor as the FIR.” Id. In accordance with Belcea926’s teachings, “all FIRs deployed on the same floor are on [a] same line of [a] matrix, regardless [of] the position on the floor,” and that “filtered data can be compared for finding the floor where is located the FIR that provides to the targeted mobile device the smallest TOF and the best RSSI simultaneously.” Id. ¶¶ 47, 55. We find persuasive Mr. Andrews’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that Belcea teaches to first identify the nodes on a specific floor, disregard nodes on other floors, and then perform location determinations using only the nodes on the specific floor desired,” as this testimony is consistent with these teachings. Compare Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 169–171, with Ex. 1006, 11:26–38, and Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 43, 47, 55. In addition, we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement these teachings [from Belcea and Belcea926] with Wrappe to ensure that the user is connected to a beacon from the store that they are in as opposed to a different store on the floor above or below the user.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 172. We also find persuasive Mr. Andrews’s testimony that “[d]ifferent stores on different floors are less relevant to [a] user, because even though they may be nearby in the vertical sense (e.g. directly underneath the user on a different floor), if the user is not in the store, then they are less likely to be interested in messages from that store.” Id. This testimony is consistent with Wrappe and Belcea’s teachings of improving the precision of locating position. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (57); Ex. 1006, code (57). In sum, we agree with Petitioner and find that the combination of Wrappe and Belcea teaches that the system narrows the plurality of nodes for use by the user at a first elevational level (i.e., narrows to the nodes on a user’s floor, excluding nodes on other floors), and determines the closest node on that floor to the user (i.e., the node at the closest accessible location to the user).” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 8,315,203 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,315,203 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00919 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 would have been obvious over Leaning.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“The Board’s application of these factors “is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner.” Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 2, 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). “Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors,” and if the second petitioner and the first petitioner have a “significant relationship with respect to . . . [the challenged patent],” then the Board will consider the first petition in its General Plastic analysis. Id. at 9–10.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“2. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during Resp. 14, 16–17) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][2] (see Pet. 19–21) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4–6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Leaning is substantially the same as Leaning US, which was previously presented to the Office. b. Advanced Bionics Part Two To determine whether Petitioner has shown material error, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments,” and if that record “is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f).” Id. As Petitioner notes (see Pet. 69), the record regarding the Office’s” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“On this record, we are preliminarily persuaded that Leaning teaches that each copy of the video is divided into sub-files that correspond to different temporal portions of the video. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:20– 28, 3:5–18, p.7 (table). We are also preliminarily persuaded Leaning teaches that each sub-file represents the same fixed time period (e.g., four seconds), and that each of Leaning’s sub-files has a corresponding sub-file in the other copies. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Abstr., 6:21–7:2 (including table), 12:8–20. Moreover, we are preliminarily persuaded that Leaning’s sub-files each have a time index because the sub-file names are sequentially numbered. See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 7:1–2, 12:16–20, p. 7 (table); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 73. Accordingly, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Leaning teaches elements 1[A][3], 1[A][4], and 1[A][5].8 1[B]: “requesting by the media player a plurality of sequential ones of the files of one of the copies from the set of servers over a plurality of Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indexes;” Petitioner contends that Leaning teaches and/or renders obvious element 1[B]. Pet. 29–35. According to Petitioner, Leaning teaches that terminal 3 requests a plurality of sequential sub-files of one of the copies from server 1. Id. at 29–31 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:12–19, 2:15–18, 5:4– 6:2, 6:27–7:2, 8:6–16, 23:3–10 (claim 1), 24:28–35 (claim 11), 25:17–20 (claim 16); Ex. 1003 ¶ 79; Pet. 21–29). Petitioner also asserts that an 8 Although we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative contention that element 1[A][5] would have been obvious over Leaning, we will evaluate that contention in our final written decision if appropriate.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,868,772 - PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00918 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 and 12–16 would have been obvious over Leaning.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“when there is an earlier petition challenging the same patent. See General Plastic, Paper 19 at 15–16. To determine whether to deny the subsequent petition, the Board considers the following non-exclusive factors (the “General Plastic factors”): 1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; 2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should have known of it; 3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first petition; 4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the filing of the second petition; 5. whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent; 6. the finite resources of the Board; and 7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director notices institution of review. Id. at 16.” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“when a petition presents “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments [that] previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To evaluate whether such a denial is appropriate, the Board determines: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In applying this two-part Advanced Bionics framework, we evaluate several non-exclusive factors, including: 13 Like the parties, we focus our analysis on Leaning. See Pet. 67–69; Prelim. Resp. 14–22; Prelim. Reply 1–4; Prelim. Sur-reply 1–4. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s Leaning-only ground meets the standard for institution, and we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative ground based on Leaning and Gamble. See supra §§ II.E–F. Moreover, the statutory purpose of Section 325(d) would not be undermined by instituting on both challenges given Gamble’s limited role in Petitioner’s ground (see Pet. 58–60) and during prosecution (see, e.g., Ex. 1002, 208). art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which petitioner relies on the prior art or patent owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III.C.5, first paragraph). Factors (a), (b), and (d) relate to the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework (i.e., whether the art or arguments presented in the Petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office), and factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to the second part (i.e., “whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office” in its prior consideration of the prior art or arguments). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9. “[T]his framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during prosecution. See Pet. 67–68. We agree with Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 14–17) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][3] (see Pet. 20–22) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4–6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Leaning is substantially the same as Leaning US, which was previously presented to the Office. b. Advanced Bionics Part Two To determine whether Petitioner has shown material error, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments,” and if that record “is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f).” Id. consideration of Leaning US is nearly silent. Neither the applicants nor the examiner discussed Leaning US, and the examiner did not use it as a basis of any rejection. Rather, Leaning US was only cited on a twenty-five page Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) along with 237 other references. See Ex. 1002, 7–31. Given the volume of the applicants’ disclosure, it would not be surprising if the examiner overlooked material information in it. Because the Office’s evaluation of Leaning US was minimal, we find that factor (c) weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution. As for factors (e) and (f), Petitioner has shown that the Office erred by” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Motivation foundInstituted
“The legal question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of obviousness or nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,407,564
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.