• Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00339 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang; the Board did not reach the separate Prajapat and Wang challenge.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (2) at least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 11–12; see Dec. 9–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 42. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data” and, as a result, this portion of the specification should limit the claim term. PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). The quoted portion of Mr. Friedman’s testimony, however, addresses other terms in the specification and not “information related to a shared web browsing interaction.” PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). As such, the testimony cited by Patent Owner does not support Patent Owner’s position. Accordingly, we determine that the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data” in the written description. c. Plain and Ordinary Meaning Because the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data,” we look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., from the ordinary meaning will be adopted “when the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pet. Reply 5 (Petitioner arguing that “web browsing interaction data” should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning) (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13). Notably, both Dr. Lieberman and Mr. Friedman agree that the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is sufficient to inform how one of ordinary skill would have understood the term. Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (Dr. Lieberman testifying: “The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions. No additional definition or limitation is required in my opinion, nor is there any special or specific meaning given to the term in the specification of the ’145 patent.”); Ex. 1033, 171:5–16 (Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Friedman, testifying that “the plain and ordinary meaning is sufficient.”). According to Petitioner, the plain and ordinary meaning is “data related to web browsing interactions.” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13); Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (“The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions.”). Patent Owner’s expert declined to opine on what the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” other than it excludes webpages and partially filled webpages related to a web browsing interaction. See Ex. 1033, 171:5–16. slip op. at 27

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

    “Accordingly, we conclude that the plain language of the claims does not require “web browsing interaction data” to be limited to data describing interaction performed on a website by a host device. We turn to the specification because the meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is informed “not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The written description does not provide a definition or clear meaning for “web browsing interaction data.” Patent Owner acknowledges the term is not expressly used in the written description. PO Resp. 17. Patent Owner, however, identifies “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” as a term that is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data.” PO Resp. 18, 29. We recognize the specification term “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is substantially similar10 to Petitioner’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” as “data related to web browsing interactions.” 11 Patent Owner identifies three passages that each describe the present invention as receiving information related to a shared web browsing interaction performed by a host device and performing the shared web browsing interaction based on the received information. PO Resp. 17–18 (block quoting Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:10–24). The identified passages, however, do not show intention to manifestly limit “web browsing interaction data” to data describing interactions” slip op. at 25

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

    “forth by Petitioner (Pet. 22–34) discloses or suggests all limitations recited by claim 1, we consider Petitioner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Lebrun and Wang in the manner proposed to arrive at the claimed invention. See Pet. 19–22. (i) Articulated Reasoning To demonstrate obviousness, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Wang’s activating a session invitation with Lebrun’s invitation to join a group-surfing session. Pet. 28. Specifically, Petitioner contends that “activating an invitation via a designated URL address would further enable” Lebrun’s group-surfing server “to coordinate and manage the group-surfing session, which would further Lebrun’s objective of providing an ‘improved technique for group access to web sites.’” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:1). We agree with Petitioner that activating an invitation via a designated URL address would be a technique that helps coordinate a group-surfing session and would enable multiple related users being able to access “substantially the same” slip op. at 63

  Patent outcomesUS 9,185,145 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,185,145
• Apple Inc. v. Ald Social LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01399 · APJ Phillip A Bennett · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Wolfe renders claim 1 obvious under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review is under 35 U.S.C. § 314. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). To institute an inter partes review, the information presented in the Petition must show “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).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “factors, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The prior art of record also reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The asserted prior art, like the challenged patent, presents high-level schematics and functional descriptions of various system components used in monitoring events and crowd behavior using location-based services. These system components largely include servers, websites, and mobile telephones utilizing wireless technologies, such as Wi-Fi, cellular, and global positioning system (GPS) to communicate and generate location data regarding mobile devices, as well as the use of databases to store historical information related to location-based services. The prior art and the patent provide description of monitoring crowd behavior by tracking the location of groups of mobile devices. Neither the challenged patent nor the asserted” slip op. at 7

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

    “we agree with Petitioner that “[t]he specification does not provide any explicit definition.” Pet. 14. The written description, however, indicates “[a] viral event is defined as occurring when one or more predefined parameter thresholds have been surpassed, as determined in the exemplary embodiment in the Network Monitor 302.” Ex. 1001, 4:45–48. As Petitioner notes, the written description also provides examples of predefined parameter thresholds used by Network Monitor 302 “to determine if the monitored network indicates that a viral event may be occurring or impending.” Ex. 1001, 5:14–16; Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:16–20). Examples of predefined parameter thresholds include an excessive number of wireless devices in an area, excessive use of wireless devices in an area, two highly dense clusters of wireless devices converging at a significant rate of speed, and the difference in the number of wireless devices in an area exceeds a threshold over consecutive time periods. Ex. 1001, 5:15–20, 5:31–35, 5:41–42 (“to assess the number . . . of wireless devices”), 5:55–57; see Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:31–36, 5:51–57). As such, the written description describes parameter thresholds related to number, use, and movement of wireless devices being used to determine whether a viral event may be occurring.” slip op. at 10

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

    “institution. On this preliminary record, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that responsive to the network monitor observing a significant aggregation of devices in a particular area, application 322 functions as a crowd risk determinant because the application 322 assesses the needs arising from the aggregation of devices in that area. Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 46. Additionally, although the example provided in Wolfe relates to determining the number of pizza slices needed based on how many devices are in particular location, on this preliminary record, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement a similar risk analysis to determine that police patrols would be needed in a particular area, as taught by Wolfe, based on the determination of crowd’s location, activity, and movement. Id. at 14.” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,402,158
• Apple Inc. v. Ald Social, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2024 · IPR2023-01398 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Wolfe and Pfeffer.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on declaration testimony from Dr. Guy (Ex. 1003), Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the field of crowd analysis and location-based computing” and would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science/computer engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of crowd analysis and location-based computing.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Petitioner further notes that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. For purposes of this Institution Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

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

    “agree with Petitioner that “[t]he specification does not provide any explicit definition” for “indication of a viral event.” Pet. 13. The written description, however, indicates “[a] viral event is defined as occurring when one or more predefined parameter thresholds have been surpassed, as determined in the exemplary embodiment in the Network Monitor 302.” Ex. 1001, 4:40–43. As Petitioner notes, the written description also provides examples of predefined parameter thresholds used by Network Monitor 302 “to determine if the monitored network indicates that a viral event may be occurring or impending.” Ex. 1001, 5:9–12; Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:9–15). Examples of predefined parameter thresholds include an excessive number of wireless devices in an area, excessive use of wireless devices in an area, two highly dense clusters of wireless devices converging at a significant rate of speed, and the difference in the number of wireless devices in an area exceeds a threshold over consecutive time periods. Ex. 1001, 5:12–14, 5:27–31, 5:35 (“to assess the number . . . of wireless devices”), 5:48–51; see Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:26–31, 5:45–51). As such, the written description describes parameter thresholds related to number, use, and movement of wireless devices being used to determine whether a viral event may be occurring.” slip op. at 10

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

    “4. The Combination of Wolfe and Pfeffer To demonstrate obviousness, Petitioner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. More specifically, to prevail, Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that “a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teaching of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Regarding the required articulate reasoning, Petitioner contends that “[a]lthough Wolfe teaches providing relevant crowd information to police, Wolfe does not provide the details for how to alert and notify the police.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 14). “Pfeffer, however, fills in Wolfe’s details by specifically teaching techniques for receiving information about crowds, evaluating the information, and alerting first responders when needed,” according to Petitioner. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, ¶¶ 6, 40–41). Petitioner also contends that the combination would provide additional benefits to Wolfe’s system from Pfeffer’s additional features, such as providing “continuous updates to the incident scenario model saved for future use, recommendations for the most effective methods to respond to the incident based on past responses and current trends, and determining if an incident should be elevated based on the number of people involved in the incident.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 28, 77, 85). Regarding the required expectation of success, Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA would have found the combination of Wolfe and Pfeffer predictable” because they are similar in that “both systems analyze crowd information to identify safety risks.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 75; Ex. 1004, Abstract, ¶¶ 11, 14; Ex. 1005 ¶ 28). Petitioner further asserts that “[a] POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success when combining Wolfe and Pfeffer because [they] are implemented in the same manner,” with both being implemented on servers and with Pfeffer indicating that its techniques could be “any combination of software and/or hardware that is configured to perform one or more tasks.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78; Ex. 1004 ¶ 70, 74; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 32). Petitioner also contends “the combination would use known techniques (Pfeffer’s implementation details of an incident response method) to improve a similar system (Wolfe’s crowd detection and incident response system) in the same way (providing crowd details and incident information to first responders so that they may better respond to comprised crowd safety).” Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–79). Petitioner’s showing (Pet. 23–27) of articulated reasoning to support” slip op. at 23

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,198,054
• Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00341 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR of claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Lebrun and Wang render at least claim 1 obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review is under 35 U.S.C. § 314. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). To institute an inter partes review, the information presented in the Petition must show “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).” slip op. at 2

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

    “claim construction standard employed in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under the principles set forth by our reviewing court, the “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,’” as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner propose express constructions for any claim terms. Pet. 12; Prelim. Resp. 34. For purposes of this decision, we agree that no claim terms need be expressly construed. Patent Owner arguments regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability, however, raise particular claim scope contentions, particularly regarding “information related to the shared web browsing interaction” recited in each of the independent claims. We preliminarily address issues of claim scope in our later discussion of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, based on this preliminary record, we find Patent Owner’s assessment of “internet web browsing software development, web connectivity software development, or networking software development” to be too narrow in view of the asserted prior art that describes in large measure requesting and receiving web pages from web servers. Thus, we find that Petitioner’s assessment of “software development and/or web- based software” more appropriate for purposes of institution on this limited record. We also agree with Petitioner that additional education could have substituted for professional experience, and significant work experience could have substituted for formal education. For the purpose of this decision, for these reasons, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (2) at least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software. We apply that level of ordinary skill in this decision. Our decision, however, would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, there is evidence to consider in making a determination whether Dr. Lieberman possesses the requisite ordinary level of skill. We, however, need not make such a determination for purposes of this decision because it has not been necessary for us to rely on Dr. Lieberman’s declaration in this decision. “No rule requires a Petition to be accompanied by any declaration, let alone one from an expert guiding the Board as to how it should read prior art.” Belden Inc. v. Berk–Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1079 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[E]xpert testimony is not required when the references and the invention are easily understandable.” Id. (quoting Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). “Board members, because of expertise, may more often find it easier to understand and soundly explain the teachings and suggestions of prior art without expert assistance.” Id. Here, the invention and prior art are presented in high-level functional terms and are easily understandable, as we indicated previously in Section II.A and as shown by our discussion of the invention and prior art throughout this decision. To determine that the Petition met the institution threshold of showing “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition,” we have not relied on Dr. Lieberman’s declaration testimony. Patent Owner, of course, may raise the issue of Dr. Lieberman’s qualifications during trial.” slip op. at 58

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,483,448
• Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jun 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00339 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution

  Instituted review of claims 1–18 on all asserted grounds because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim was obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review is under 35 U.S.C. § 314. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). To institute an inter partes review, the information presented in the Petition must show “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).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, based on this preliminary record, we find Patent Owner’s assessment of “internet web browsing software development, web connectivity software development, or networking software development” to be overly narrow in view of the asserted prior art that describes in large measure requesting and receiving web pages from web servers. Thus, we find that Petitioner’s assessment of “software development and/or web-based software” more appropriate for purposes of institution on this limited record. We also agree with Petitioner that additional education could have substituted for professional experience, and significant work experience could have substituted for formal education. For the purpose of this decision, for these reasons, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s a similar field, and (2) at least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software. We apply that level of ordinary skill in this decision. Our decision, however, would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, there is evidence to consider in making a determination whether Dr. Lieberman possesses the requisite ordinary level of skill. We, however, need not make such a determination for purposes of this decision because it has not been necessary for us to rely on Dr. Lieberman’s declaration in this decision. “No rule requires a Petition to be accompanied by any declaration, let alone one from an expert guiding the Board as to how it should read prior art.” Belden Inc. v. Berk–Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1079 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[E]xpert testimony is not required when the references and the invention are easily understandable.” Id. (quoting Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). “Board members, because of expertise, may suggestions of prior art without expert assistance.” Id. Here, the invention and prior art are presented in high-level functional terms and are easily understandable, as we indicated previously in Section II.A and as shown by our discussion of the invention and prior art throughout this decision. To determine that the Petition met the institution threshold of showing “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition,” we have not relied on Dr. Lieberman’s declaration testimony. Patent Owner, of course, may raise the issue of Dr. Lieberman’s qualifications during trial.” slip op. at 46

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner propose express constructions for any claim terms. Pet. 12; Prelim. Resp. 32. For purposes of this decision, we agree that no claim terms need be expressly construed. Patent Owner particular claim scope contentions regarding “web browsing interaction data” recited in each of the independent claims. We preliminarily address those issues of claim scope in our later discussion of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,185,145
• Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. v. Nomadix, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 22, 2018 · IPR2018-00376 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and upheld denial of institution on the Slemmer and Vu obviousness ground because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “When rehearing a decision on a petition, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co.,, 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Notably, we must base our determination of a “reasonable likelihood” that Petitioner would “prevail” on “the information presented in the petition,” specifically. In the present case, Petitioner has not provided a basis, legal or otherwise, in support of its position that we must determine a “reasonable likelihood” based on information presented in some other petition, much less based on some other evidence of record in another proceeding. For example, in IPR2016-00077, the panel based its decision on a “Declaration by Mr. Keith Olsen.” That evidence is not of record in this proceeding.” slip op. at 3

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

    “supporting Petitioner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the cited references. Req. Reh’g. 8–10. In particular, Petitioner reiterates previous arguments presented in the Petition such as “Vu is one of the first prior art references to teach the handshake” but that “other prior art references also teach it.” Req. Reh’g 9. These arguments were previously addressed. Decision 7–8. Although Petitioner may disagree with our resolution of the arguments that Petitioner presented in its Petition, such arguments were considered fully in our Decision.” slip op. at 4

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “construction for the term ‘TCP connection hand shake completion data,’ which resulted in an incorrect determination.” Req. Reh’g. 5. In particular, Petitioner now proposes a broadest reasonable construction of the term “TCP connection hand shake completion data” to mean “two devices initiating a communication session by the first device sending information to a second device, and the second device then responding to the first device.” Req. Reh’g. 7. Based on this newly proposed construction of the term “TCP connection hand shake completion data,” Petitioner argues that Vu discloses this feature. Req. Reh’g. 6–8. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioner must “identify all matters [Petitioner] believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” Petitioner did not present this proposed construction in the Petition. See generally Req. Reh’g.; see generally Pet. We could not have “misapprehended or overlooked” what was not presented.” slip op. at 4

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,266
• Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00627 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 10–16, 21–23, 25, and 38–46 are unpatentable; claims 6–9, 17–20, 24, and 47 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Although the dictionary defines “periodically” as “from time to time” or “at regular intervals of time,” based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that its proposed construction is how one skilled in the art would have understood that term in the context of the ’345 patent Specification. Turning first to the intrinsic evidence, the Specification explains that “[t]he future and current minimum values are calculated continuously and initiated periodically, for example, every 5 seconds.” Ex. 1001, 8:37–39. Although the Specification later notes that “[i]t will be appreciated that, while specific values are used as in the several equations and calculations employed in the present invention, these values may be different than those shown” (id. at 8:64–67), this passage does not mean that the Specification contemplates arrangements where “periodically” is simply “from time to time.” Rather, we determine that statement from the Specification indicates that the specific amount of time (i.e., every 5 seconds) may vary. Turning now to the extrinsic evidence, the testimony of Dr. Douglas supports our conclusion, explaining that “at regular intervals of time” is the “only . . . definition . . . consistent with the understanding of a person skilled in the art in light of the specification of the ’345 Patent and its use in the particular field of audio signal processing” because [l]ike the “period” of an audio signal itself, which is the amount of time it takes for a signal to repeat itself, “periodically” as recited in claims 6 and 9 and throughout the remainder of the specification of the ’345 Patent refers to actions that occur at regular intervals (e.g., every 5 seconds rather than merely “from time to time”). Ex. 2002 ¶ 48. Moreover, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hochwald testifies that outside of the context of the ’345 patent Specification, “periodically” means “at regular time intervals” (Ex. 2005, 99:13–15), and when asked about that term’s meaning in the context of the ’345 patent Specification, Dr. Hochwald simply noted that “all I can do is read what it says,” which is that “[i]t’s doing something periodically, for example, every five seconds” (id. at 100:4–6). Accordingly, the testimony from Dr. Douglas, as well as that from Dr. Hochwald, supports Patent Owner’s construction. In summary, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “periodically,” requiring “at regular intervals of time,” because (1) this is consistent with how this term is used in the context of the ’345 Patent Specification; and (2) this is supported by the testimony of both experts.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner responds that, because Helf uses average values (i.e., the average of eight consecutive values), it does not disclose using a minimum value. PO Resp. 17–23. Patent Owner acknowledges that the ’345 patent, itself, uses a “smoothing process [that] produces frequency bins with multiple smoothed magnitude values, ultimately finding the minimum of all of the values,” but contends that “Helf’s averaging process produces a single output representing one average of the original samples.” Id. at 20–21 (underlining omitted) (citing Ex. 1001, 8:14–28; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72). We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the differences between Helf and the ’345 patent. While Helf may ultimately produce a single minimum value, as discussed above, that value is based on a minimum value of the averages calculated over the given time period. At oral hearing, Patent Owner acknowledged that Helf determines many averages values (i.e., the averages of the eight consecutive frames) and determines a minimum of those values. See, e.g., Tr. 22:2–6. The claim simply requires a “future minimum value,” and does not preclude that value from being a minimum value taken from a set of average values. Indeed, such an interpretation of the claim would be inconsistent with the ’345 patent’s use of smoothed values noted by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 8:14–28. The testimony of Dr. Douglas cited by Patent Owner does not convince us otherwise. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72 (effectively repeating Patent Owner’s contentions, which are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Helf’s minimum value (Mk) corresponds to the “future minimum value” recited in claims 4 and 39.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundMotivation foundMixed

    “With respect to its “running minimum estimator,” Helf explains that the “running minimum estimator” is used “when either the speech signal is never absent for more than a second or the background noise itself is never constant in spectral shape.” Ex. 1010, 8:11–15. Helf acknowledges that its “running minimum estimator” is “much less accura[te]” than its “stationary estimator,” which is typically used for background noise estimates. Id. at 8:15–17. As a result, Helf only uses its “running minimum estimator” if “[i]t has been more than 10 seconds since the last update of the background noise spectral estimate due to the Stationary Estimator,” and “[t]he difference, D, between the past background noise estimate, which may have resulted from the Stationary Estimator or the Running Minimum Estimator, and the current Running Minimum Estimator is great.” Id. at 8:32–42. We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,363,345 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,363,345
• SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2018 · IPR2017-00692 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–14 as anticipated by Best and obvious over Best, and claim 15 as obvious over Best, Mills, and Bonella.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction “requires two layers of IC packages, in which a first IC package (the Board’s ‘carrier’) contains one or more second IC packages (the Board’s memory chips).” PO Resp. 39. Petitioner counters that “[t]he Board’s construction does no such thing.” Pet. Reply 18–19. We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner’s argument is predicated upon the erroneous assertion that “[e]ach memory chip in the Board’s ‘carrier’ requires a different IC package (i.e., a second IC package) that encloses at least one memory die.” PO Resp. 39. Each memory chip does not require its own integrated circuit package. On the contrary, it may be, as Best discloses, a die enclosed with another die in a single IC package. Having considered the arguments and evidence, we maintain our construction of “memory module” to mean “a carrier that contains one or more memory chips,” where “carrier” encompasses an integrated circuit package.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Otherwise, we determine that no express finding on a specific corresponding level of technical education and experience is necessary. Here, the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We have reviewed the arguments provided by Patent Owner and determine such arguments are insufficient to have Mr. Maltiel’s declaration excluded in its entirety. Rather, it is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to be accorded evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); and Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In giving more weight to prior publications than to subsequent conclusory statements by experts, the Board acted well within [its] discretion.”). Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that we should give the entirety of Mr. Maltiel’s declaration no weight.” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “8–14. Pet. 30–37, 44–49. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, which we have considered and which we address below, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing, which we adopt as our own findings and conclusions, that claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Best.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,874,831 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,874,831
• Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00331 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,504,696 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,504,696
• Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 24, 2015 · IPR2014-00482 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 7,188,180 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,188,180

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.