- PTAB · Apr 28, 2017 · IPR2015-01664 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Ericsson’s rehearing request, leaving intact its final written decision that claims 8–12 and 18–22 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“On rehearing, the burden of showing the Decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s Request is denied.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for patent owner
“Petitioner provided no details in its Reply regarding how “within the limits of” adds additional confusion, or why a construction including such language would be inappropriate. The Patent Owner Response demonstrated Patent Owner’s clear disagreement with Petitioner’s position that the proposed prior art combination teaches transmitting the entirety of a broadcast channel in an OFDMA core-band. Nevertheless, in its Reply, Petitioner provided neither an explanation of its understanding of the alleged plain meaning of the disputed limitation nor an explicit statement that transmitting only a portion of a broadcast channel in an OFDMA core-band would be sufficient to meet the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we did not misapprehend or overlook Petitioner’s generic argument for adopting an unspecified “plain meaning” of the disputed limitation. We evaluated all arguments and evidence submitted by both parties, and we determined that the proper construction of the disputed limitation precluded transmitting any portion of the recited broadcast channel outside the OFDMA core-band.” slip op. at 5
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“As discussed in the Decision and above, we provided a preliminary construction of the plain meaning of the disputed term in our Institution Decision, Inst. Dec. 11, and Patent Owner contested that preliminary construction in its Patent Owner Response, see PO Resp. 14–16. Nevertheless, as explained above, Petitioner merely provided unsupported assertions that the plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed limitation should apply and argued Patent Owner’s proposed construction generated more confusion than clarity. See Pet. Reply 2, 3–5. Petitioner did not identify evidence to demonstrate the preliminary construction was correct. We are unable to find—and Petitioner does not cite—any portion of the Petition or Reply identifying the full bandwidth preamble to which Petitioner now refers, much less discussing its relevance to any issue. The panel questioned the parties extensively at the hearing regarding what it means to “transmit a broadcast channel in an” OFDMA core-band. See Tr. 10:4–21:4, 24:16–25:4. Petitioner never pointed to the now-cited disclosure in the specification, let alone argued that such a disclosure was relevant to the proper construction of the disputed limitation. Moreover, the technology is complex, and the record during trial lacks briefing from the parties or testimony from either party’s expert declarant on the portion of the specification now raised by Petitioner. We decline to consider Petitioner’s untimely argument presented for the first time in its Request for Rehearing.” slip op. at 6
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,787,431 - Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 8, 2017 · IPR2015-01664 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 8–12 and 18–22 not shown unpatentable as obvious over Dulin, Yamaura, Zhuang, and Hwang because the combination did not teach the entire broadcast channel within the core-band.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Upon further review of the ’431 patent, particularly in view of Patent Owner’s arguments supported by Dr. Zeger’s testimony discussed above, we are persuaded that our preliminary partial construction was unreasonably broad to the extent that construction indicated the transmitting a broadcast channel limitation would be met by the transmission of a broadcast channel that is only partially within the core-band. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that to show that the transmitting “a broadcast channel in an” OFDMA core-band limitation is met, Petitioner must demonstrate that the prior art teaches or suggests transmitting a broadcast channel, wherein the entire channel is contained within the core-band.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“as calling signals) in a “broadcast burst” (including Yamaura’s BCH and FCH) using only a subset of the subcarriers near the center of the bandwidth that makes up the channel. Pet. 27–29, 36–37; PO Resp. 30; Ex. 1003, 1:65–67, 6:5–8, 20:65–67, 21:30–32, 24:6–14; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 65–68. There is some ambiguity, however, regarding whether Yamaura transmits signals outside of its narrow band during the time slots assigned to the alleged broadcast channels BCH and FCH (e.g., SC1 and SC2 as depicted in Figure 17 of Yamaura). See Ex. 1003, 21:1–43, Fig. 17. After reviewing the relevant portions of Yamaura, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Yamaura transmits signals only in its narrow band during the BCH and FCH time slots for the reasons discussed below.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Petitioner argues there are no signals other than calling signals sent during BCH and FCH because “the whole broadcast burst is part of the calling signal.” Tr. 102:17–103:2. However, upon review of the complete record and in the context of Yamaura’s entire disclosure, we credit Dr. Haas’s testimony that Yamaura’s repeated references to calling signals being specific control signals or part of the control signals indicates that Yamaura transmits other control signals during the BCH and FCH time slots. PO Resp. 30–31; Ex. 2001 ¶ 107.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,787,431 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,787,431 - Westerngeco LLC v. PGS Geophysical AsRehearing grantedPTAB · Feb 3, 2017 · IPR2015-00313 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Rehearing
On rehearing, the Board held claim 2 unpatentable as anticipated by Gallagher, modifying the final written decision; no other aspect was modified.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“On rehearing, the burden of showing the Decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s request for rehearing is granted. This decision on rehearing modifies our Final Written Decision only to the extent that we now hold claim 2 of the ’059 patent to be unpatentable as anticipated by Gallagher. Neither party challenges our holdings with respect to any other claims in our Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Owner, and Petitioner does not contest, that traces “have the same coordinates” when those traces populate the same bin in the “set of bins.” We agree with Petitioner, however, that the disputed limitation is tied to the assignment of coordinates, not to the organizing step, and we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that a trace can only populate a particular bin after “the coordinate-designated set of traces” has been organized.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“interpreted properly (i.e., not tied to the organizing step), Gallagher teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Req. Reh’g 5–6. We found persuasive Petitioner’s mappings of (1) Gallagher’s assignment of sections and shells in a common reference point bin to the assigning step, (2) the section-shell segments created from that assignment to the recited set of bins, and (3) Gallagher’s decimation process, which in one example leaves one trace per section-shell segment (or bin), to the organizing step. Dec. 14–19; see Pet. 45–48. In Gallagher, it is the combination of the acquisition geometry and the selection of the sections and shells that defines the coordinate-designated set of traces and the bins. Prior to Gallagher’s decimation,” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,026,059 - Microsoft Corporation And Microsoft Mobile, Inc. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01928 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Jahagirdar and Schultz because their combination would have been a predictable substitution of familiar touch sensors for keys.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“III. CONCLUSION Based on the evidence and arguments, Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 3, and 20 of the ’494 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jahagirdar and Schultz. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that claims 1, 3, and 20 of the ’494 patent have been shown to be unpatentable; and” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelOther
“touch sensors were not limited by size or arrangement, and a person of ordinary skill could have taken the Schultz sensors and put them into touch sensors the size of the buttons on Jahagirdar. Ex. 1017, 138:17–21, 140:2– 13. Additionally, as Dr. Morley acknowledges, the claims of the ’494 patent contain no limitations as to the physical form, internal architecture, or arrangement of the touch sensors. Id. at 172:12–173:10. Patent Owner presents no argument that the proposed combination would have been beyond the capabilities or knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art. As the Supreme Court has stated, “when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (internal quotation marks omitted). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation . . . § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. As illustrated by Schultz, the use of a touch sensor as an alternative to a mechanical push button was well known in the prior art. See Ex. 1005; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 40–43. We agree that the combination of Jahagirdar and Schultz teaches the elements of claim 1 as arranged, and we determine the proposed combination would have been obvious, because it merely involves substitution of familiar elements, the combination of which yields predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In particular, we agree that the proposed combination is the simple substitution or modification of Jahagirdar’s keys with Schultz’s known touch sensor. This is, in other words, a textbook case of obviousness. See Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“This is a textbook case of” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“As the Supreme Court has stated, “when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (internal quotation marks omitted). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation . . . § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. As illustrated by Schultz, the use of a touch sensor as an alternative to a mechanical push button was well known in the prior art. See Ex. 1005; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 40–43. We agree that the combination of Jahagirdar and Schultz teaches the elements of claim 1 as arranged, and we determine the proposed combination would have been obvious, because it merely involves substitution of familiar elements, the combination of which yields predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In particular, we agree that the proposed combination is the simple substitution or modification of Jahagirdar’s keys with Schultz’s known touch sensor. This is, in other words, a textbook case of obviousness. See Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“This is a textbook case of when the asserted claims involve a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that does no more than yield predictable results.”). Patent Owner does not point us to objective evidence of nonobviousness to overcome the textbook case of obviousness here.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s position that the proposed combination would increase accidental actuations when grabbing or holding Jahagirdar’s mobile station, Petitioner points to Dr. Morley’s testimony that touch sensors would alleviate accidental actuation by inanimate objects (e.g., “clothes, objects in a bag, [and] surfaces of furniture”). Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1017, 157:20–158:23; Ex. 2006 ¶ 63). Accordingly, Petitioner argues a person having ordinary skill in the art looking to reduce inadvertent actuation by inanimate objects would be motivated to incorporate Schultz’s touch sensor. Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 4–5). Moreover, Petitioner’s unrebutted evidence in the record demonstrates Schultz’s touch sensor could have been integrated into Jahagirdar’s keys 144 in multiple ways, depending upon what might have been convenient or desirable. Id. at 3–4 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 75); Ex. 1023 ¶ 5. For example, a person of ordinary skill would have been readily able to relocate those touch sensors to different locations, or “one of skill could have easily programmed Jahagirdar’s controller such that touch sensor inputs were only recognized at appropriate times for example, depending on whether the mobile station 102 was opened or closed.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 75. In such a way, inadvertent actuation of the touch sensors would be minimized or eliminated.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 7,265,494 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,265,494 - Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. / Apple Inc. v. Global Touch Solutions, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01616 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Layman and Beard, with Rathmann additionally for claim 19 and APA additionally for claim 20.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“We have reviewed the Petition, Patent Owner Response, and Petitioner’s Reply, as well as the relevant evidence discussed therein. For the reasons that follow, we determine Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged claims would have been obvious in view of the asserted combined teachings of the asserted references.” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelOther
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner’s arguments, as supported by testimony from Mr. Beard, that the combination of Layman and Beard teaches or suggests the uncontested limitations recited in claim 1 as well as the additional limitations recited in dependent claims 2 and 3, and we adopt those assertions as our findings. See Pet. 35–43, 50–51. For example, Petitioner points to Layman’s power management system 28 (electronic unit) connected to an infusion pump system (product), including pump circuits 34 (load), and to power sources (both an AC power source and a battery) through an electrical circuit as meeting the preamble of claim 1. Id. at 35– 37. Petitioner argues Layman’s disclosure of processor 42 providing a control signal to turn power to pump circuits 34 on or off in response to a signal received from switch 38 meets the recited microchip that controls “the flow of power from the power source to activate the load.” Id. at 38. Petitioner contends Layman’s switch 38 is not a serial element in the power circuit because switch 38 merely sends a signal to processor 42, which controls whether the pump is powered on, and that switch 38, therefore, teaches the recited switch. Id. at 38–39. Petitioner relies on Beard for teaching a touch sensor used to activate the battery capacity display. Id. at 39–40. We find the disclosures in Rathmann and APA relied upon by Petitioner teach or suggest the additional limitations recited in claims 19 and 20, respectively, id. at 52–55, and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine Rathmann’s asserted teachings as proposed, id. at 30–34. We discuss the disputed limitations of independent claim 1 and the rationale for combining the asserted teachings from Layman and Beard in more detail below.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“All of Patent Owner’s challenges to Petitioner’s rationale assume the proposed combination replaces Layman’s battery with the battery disclosed in Beard. See, e.g., PO Resp. 8 (“While the Petition suggests replacing Layman’s battery with that of Beard would be desirable . . . .”) Petitioner does not suggest such a replacement. Rather, Petitioner asserts “[a] POSITA would have been especially motivated to combine Layman with Beard’s power-saving touch switch activated display in light of Layman’s stated desire for features that extend battery life and increase the time between battery replacements.” Pet. 28 (emphasis added). Petitioner reiterated its position, asserting that Patent Owner’s arguments do “not address Petitioner’s motivation arguments,” which are no “more than an obvious substitution of elements that were well known in the prior art.” Pet. Reply 2. Petitioner merely proposes incorporating Beard’s teaching of a touch switch activated display into Layman’s system. Pet. Reply 7 (arguing “the Petition analyzed whether one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to incorporate a touch-sensor activated display such as in Beard into Layman’s system”). As discussed above, Petitioner has presented reasons with rational underpinning as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to integrate Beard’s touch sensor activated display with Layman. We find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive, and we adopt those reasons as the rationale for combining the cited teachings of Beard with the cited teachings of Layman.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 7,265,494 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,265,494 - Westerngeco, L.L.C. v. PGS Geophysical AsSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 8, 2016 · IPR2015-00309 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 21, and 22 are unpatentable; claims 3–5 are not shown unpatentable, and challenges to claims 18–20 are dismissed.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 21, and 22 are unpatentable, but has failed to do so for claims 3–5 and 12–15. We dismiss the Petition with respect to the challenges asserted against claims 18–20.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“more than merely “selecting” times. Petitioner offers no explanation how Dr. Ikelle’s testimony that “indexed” should be construed broadly to mean “selected,” Ex. 2002, 184:8–11, would be consistent with the rest of the limitation that requires enabling separate identification of events originating from different sources. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, however, is unduly narrow to the extent it requires recording. As explained in the passage cited by Patent Owner, recording the signal and indexing are two separate aspects of the process involved in the ’981 patent. Ex. 1001, 5:62–67 (“A recording is made of the signal . . . that is indexed to a known time reference with respect to time of firing of the first source) (emphases added). The ’981 patent demonstrates that the term “indexed” is used in the “indexed” limitation according to one of its ordinary meanings that one thing is arranged in reference to another. Id.; see also id. at 6:66–7:1 (“[A] time of firing of each source with respect to a time index” is shown in Figure 4.), 8:33–40 (“[W]hen time is indexed with respect to the firing time of source A,” source B events are not coherent between firing sequences.).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Although a prior art reference may anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are inherent in it, inherency requires that “the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it anticipates.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to persuade us that de Kok disclosure of suppressing random noise inherently includes determining trace to trace coherence. Merely demonstrating a step may be done is not sufficient to show that step is inherently anticipated. Accordingly, based on the arguments and evidence submitted, we find Petitioner has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that de Kok anticipates claims 12 and 17. Similarly, because claims 13–15 ultimately depend from claim 12, we find Petitioner has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that de Kok anticipates claims 13–15.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“The relevant passages cited by both parties demonstrate that Beasley distinguishes between alternating and concurrent firings. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 7:52–63. Although Herkenhoff states that the concurrent disclosure in Beasley means “exactly concurrently,” Patent Owner has not pointed to any clear disclosure in Beasley itself indicating “concurrently” should be understood as excluding any amount of time delay. Petitioner, however, has pointed to multiple references where Beasley explains that sources may be fired “simultaneously or nearly simultaneously.” Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 8:46–47); Pet. 47 (quoting Ex. 1004, 1:19–25 (“The present invention, in certain aspects, is directed to seismic survey systems and methods in which two or more seismic sources are fired simultaneously, or significantly close together temporally . . . .”)); see also Ex. 1004, 1:47–51, 8:44–47, 9:5–10, 12:26–29. Moreover, claim 1 of the ’655 patent, which Patent Owner asserts claims the “first embodiment” of the ’981 patent, recites a method including the step of “substantially simultaneously launching a first acoustic wavefield,” from the leading source, “the first wavefield being characterized by a first unique code and launching a second acoustic wavefield” from the trailing source, “the second acoustic wavefield being characterized by a second unique code.” Ex. 2009, 6:46–53. Accordingly, Beasley does not exclude time delay encoding from its disclosed “concurrent” activation embodiments.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 6,906,981 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,906,981 - NVIDIA Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · May 4, 2016 · IPR2016-00134 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims, exercising discretion against the follow-on petition and alternatively rejecting it under § 325(d) because Hsu and Yamakawa were substantially the same.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“Given the undisputed facts as noted above, it would be unjust to Patent Owner to institute review in this proceeding. Petitioner has provided no rationale on why it waited until November 4, 2015, more than five months after filing of the first petition on June 1, 2015, in IPR2015-01318, to file the Petition in this proceeding, given that Petitioner was aware of Hsu at least by May 8, 2015. Notably, in IPR2015-01318, Patent Owner’s preliminary response was filed on September 10, 2015. On the other hand, not instituting review in this proceeding would not be unjust to Petitioner, because Petitioner was aware of Hsu when the first petition was filed on June 1, 2015, in IPR2015-01318, and subsequently waited too long to file the second petition relying on Hsu with no apparent justification. Under the circumstances of this case, as explained above, we hold Petitioner accountable for its own actions and inactions. Given the limited resources of the Board, we exercise our discretion not institute review in this proceeding, which is the second petition filed by Petitioner against claims 1– 8 and 10–15 of the ’675 patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“discussion of Hsu, we find that Yamakawa and Hsu are substantially the same insofar as claims 1–8 and 10–15 of the ’675 patent are concerned. In IPR2015-01318, Petitioner asserted that claims 1–8 and 10–15 of the ’675 patent are anticipated by Yamakawa. In this proceeding, Petitioner asserts that claims 1–8 and 10–15 of the ’675 patent are anticipated by Hsu. Neither assertion is based on any inherency argument, and both assertions rely on a direct reading of each claim limitation onto the prior art. Nothing in either Yamakawa or Hsu had to be specially construed and neither Yamakawa nor Hsu sets forth any special definition of terms. With respect to the challenged claims, we are not cognizant of any necessary disclosure that is provided by Hsu but not Yamakawa. The differences between Hsu and Yamakawa have not been shown to be significant with respect to the challenged claims. The types of steps said to be disclosed by Hsu are the types of steps said to be disclosed by Yamakawa, and vice versa. If Yamakawa anticipates the challenged claims, it would be expected that the same assertion would be made about Hsu, and the same is true the other way around.” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,252,675 - Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 17, 2016 · IPR2014-01412 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10–16, 18–21, 24–28, and 32 are unpatentable, principally because the cited references anticipate or render them obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“On July 10, 2015, we joined IPR2015-01077 to this proceeding and instituted trial on the following grounds: Claims 11 and 25 of the ’557 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’450 patent; Claims 11 and 25 of the ’557 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of the ’450 patent and the ’219 patent; and Claims 11 and 25 of the ’557 patent as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of the ’450 patent and Bungum.” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“have its plain and ordinary meaning as “a communications path in a communications network.” Dec. to Inst. 8. Patent Owner contends that we should not construe this term at all because its plain and ordinary meaning is clear. PO Resp. 6–7. Patent Owner disputes the authority of the IEEE reference we used to establish the plain and ordinary meaning, arguing that Exhibit 1017 is not a standard, but a functional requirements document generated to assist a working group and is subject to change. Id. at 7–8. However, Patent Owner does not propose a “plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. Nor does Patent Owner argue that the scope of the term would be different if we rely on other evidence of the plain and ordinary meaning. Id. Although our Decision to Institute notes that the construction of “transmission path” is not particularly material to the decision, Dec. to Inst. 7–8, it is helpful to establish a baseline definition of the meaning as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner’s assertion that the definition we applied was used by an IEEE working group supports our determination that our construction in the Decision to Institute applies the plain and ordinary meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt the construction of “transmission path” as “a communication path in a communications network.”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Time-Slot In this proceeding, neither party proposed a construction for the term “time- slot,” and we did not construe it in our Decision to Institute. However, in related case IPR2015-01471, which concerns a continuation-in-part of the ’557 Patent, it became clear that a construction of the term “slot” was in dispute, and it was discussed extensively at the consolidated oral hearing. In this proceeding, Patent Owner argues that the ’450 Patent does not disclose transmitting payload data on time slots allocated by the network control terminal (NCT), because the NCT in the ’450 Patent assigns only one slot, so that a small aperture terminal (SAT) transmits data beginning on a single slot. PO Resp. 15–19. In IPR2014-01471, we construed “slot” to mean “a duration of time.” Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Case 2014- 01471, slip op. at 7 (PTAB, March 17, 2015) (Paper 33, Final Written Decision). We address the implications of this issue in our analysis of Representative Claim A and the ’450 patent.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As discussed above, there is evidence that MPEG2 could have been used to transmit video via satellite. As previously discussed, Petitioner has cited credible evidence that satellites transport MPEG2 packets. Reply 14. The claims are drawn to a three channel arrangement in which one channel is used to transmit data from the central controller to the station and two channels are used to transmit data from the station to the central controller. As discussed above, that arrangement is disclosed in the ’450 patent. The further limitation in claims 11 and 25 that the first path is a broadcast channel carrying MPEG2 data is a restriction to a field where Petitioner has demonstrated it was known to use such a format. Thus, Petitioner has produced persuasive evidence that combining the use of known MPEG2 transport packets with a managed access satellite communication system, such as that disclosed in the ’450 patent, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill. Therefore, we conclude that Patent Owner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 11 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’450 patent.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 5,963,557 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 5,963,557 - Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC And Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 17, 2016 · IPR2015-01077 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10–16, 18–21, 24–28, and 32 are unpatentable, principally as anticipated or obvious over the ’450 Patent and related combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Transmission Path In our Decision to Institute, we construed the term “transmission path” to have its plain and ordinary meaning as “a communications path in a communications network.” Dec. to Inst. 8. Patent Owner contends that we should not construe this term at all because its plain and ordinary meaning is clear. PO Resp. 6–7. Patent Owner disputes the authority of the IEEE reference we used to establish the plain and ordinary meaning, arguing that Exhibit 1017 is not a standard, but a functional requirements document generated to assist a working group and is subject to change. Id. at 7–8. However, Patent Owner does not propose a “plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. Nor does Patent Owner argue that the scope of the term would be different if we rely on other evidence of the plain and ordinary meaning. Id. Although our Decision to Institute notes that the construction of “transmission path” is not particularly material to the decision, Dec. to Inst. 7–8, it is helpful to establish a baseline definition of the meaning as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner’s assertion that the definition we applied was used by an IEEE working group supports our determination that our construction in the Decision to Institute applies the plain and ordinary meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt the construction of “transmission path” as “a communication path in a communications network.”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Time-Slot In this proceeding, neither party proposed a construction for the term “time- slot,” and we did not construe it in our Decision to Institute. However, in related case IPR2015-01471, which concerns a continuation-in-part of the ’557 Patent, it became clear that a construction of the term “slot” was in dispute, and it was discussed extensively at the consolidated oral hearing. In this proceeding, Patent Owner argues that the ’450 Patent does not disclose transmitting payload data on time slots allocated by the network control terminal (NCT), because the NCT in the ’450 Patent assigns only one slot, so that a small aperture terminal (SAT) transmits data beginning on a single slot. PO Resp. 15–19. In IPR2014-01471, we construed “slot” to mean “a duration of time.” Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Case 2014- 01471, slip op. at 7 (PTAB, March 17, 2015) (Paper 33, Final Written Decision). We address the implications of this issue in our analysis of Representative Claim A and the ’450 patent.” slip op. at 8
- BurdenUnpatentable
“Claim element A.5 concerns actions taken by the station. As noted above, the elements of Representative Claim A, including element A.5, are common to independent claims 1 and 15. Patent Owner’s argument does not consider other language in claim 1 that provides context for limitation A.5 concerning the central controller that provides the grant to which the station responds. Apparatus claim 1 recites that, upon receiving a reservation request, the central controller responds by “transmitting on said first path a payload data transmission grant to said station for transmitting payload data on said third path on said time-slots allocated by said centralized controller.” Almost identical language appears in method claim 15. Claims 1 and 15 do not limit the form of the grant, nor do claims 1 and 15 limit the time-slots allocated by the central controller. For example, there is no requirement in the claims that the grant authorize a specific number of time-slots or that the time slots be of any particular duration. Claims 1 and 15 recite that, in response to receiving a request on the second path, the centralized controller transmits on the first path a “grant” authorizing payload data transmission on the third path at allocated time-slots. Claims 1 and 15 do not limit the allocated time slots to any particular frame or time. Nor do claims 1 and 15 preclude allocating sufficient time slots for the terminal to transmit its entire message. Given the language of the claims, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the ’450 patent discloses the recited features in element A.5, which appears in the challenged claims illustrated by Representative Claim A (independent claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 10–14, as well as corresponding dependent claims 2–4) and Representative Claim B (independent claims 15, 21, and 25–27, as well as corresponding dependent claims 16–19).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“The Specification of the ’557 Patent describes a cable system implementation and specifically states: (1) that “the implementation of the invention in a cable network was merely illustrative” (Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 39–40); (2) that another example is an implementation in a wireless system in which the central controller is a base station and that the communication units are cordless or cellular telephones (id. at col. 19, ll. 41–42); and (3) that when employed in a satellite system the central controller is a satellite and the subscriber stations are earth stations (id. at col. 19, ll. 50–54). As previously discussed, the ’450 patent discloses in Figure 1 NCT 12, which communicates with portable terminals 14 through satellite 11, using two upstream channels and one downstream channel. Ex. 1005, Abstract, Fig.1. Thus, the ’450 patent discloses the NCT in the context of a satellite network. Claims 7 and 21 recite only that the centralized controller is a base station, that the network is a wireless network, that the transmission medium is air, and that the station is a mobile or stationary communication unit. Claims 7 and 21 do not limit a wireless network to a non-satellite network, or, in the case of a satellite network, limit the base station to any particular node. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the ’450 patent anticipates the base station limitation of claims 7 and 21. Petitioner further notes that the question is not whether cellular base stations and satellites have differences, but whether media access controller and contention resolution access principles used in satellite and cellular applications are translatable to each other. Reply 12. To the extent that the base station is considered to be limited to a cellular wireless network as argued by Patent Owner, we note (1) that the Specification of the ’557 patent extends the concept of using two upstream channels and one downstream channel to a wireless network (Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 50–57) and (2) that the ’450 patent discloses the two upstream, one downstream channel approach in the context of a satellite network, in which the transmission medium is air and the central controller is the satellite (Ex. 1005, 4:50–57). Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence, that this limitation, which recites that the central controller is a mobile or stationary base station in a wireless network in which the transmission medium is air, is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’450 patent.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 5,963,557 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 5,963,557 - Ericsson Inc. / Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 17, 2016 · IPR2014-01471 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–27 are unpatentable: claims 1, 4–6, 9–12, 18, 21–24, and 27 as anticipated; all remaining claims as obvious over the listed combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“of fixed or variable size.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner initially responded that Petitioner’s proposed construction is not supported by the specification and that the term “slot” did not require construction. Prelim. Resp. 9. In our Decision to Institute, we construed “slot” to mean “a duration of time.” Dec. to Inst. 7. In the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner argues that “slot” should be construed to mean “a predetermined division of the time domain for a channel.” PO Resp. 9– 10. Patent Owner notes that the ’153 Patent discloses that “[e]ach channel illustratively is divided into slots or mini-slots.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 60–61). However, the mere division of a channel into slots, does not define a slot. Patent Owner argues that “slot” should be further limited to a predetermined division because in the context of the ’153 Patent, the central controller responds to a reservation request by “assigning specific slots to each station.” Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 11–13). However, the assignment of specific slots to each station neither defines a slot nor limits a slot to some predetermined division of the time domain. Indeed, the ’153 Patent states that “the upstream payload channel UPC carries a stream of only payload packets in slots (which may be fixed or variable in size).” Ex. 1001, col. 12, ll. 9–12. Although it is unclear whether the literal text is intended to mean that either the payload packets or the slots vary in size, the text does not restrict the slots to any particular size or preclude adapting the size of the slots to the size of the payload packets.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention ‘such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.’” In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis omitted) (quoting In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962)).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“slots (e.g., 3 or 4) is available ran[d]om access.” Id. (citing Stark Decl. ¶ 194; Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 42–48). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use such a message to reduce collisions by more precisely identifying the available slots on the reservation channel for requesting slots on the (return) payload channel. Id. The ’398 patent discloses that a known technique for reducing the probability of collisions is dynamic frame based slotted aloha random access and that in this arrangement, an access command is transmitted by a central unit on the downlink indicating that the common control channel on the uplink in the next N slots (e.g., 3 or 4 random slots) is available for access . . . [T]his arrangement has the result that access requests are spread over N frames and are therefore less likely to collide.” slip op. at 28
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“disclose sufficiently selecting different modulation schemes for the upstream control and payload channels to optimize the robustness of the control channel without degrading the robustness of the payload channel, as recited in claim 13, this feature is taught in the ’219 patent. Pet. 44. Petitioner notes, and we agree, that the ’219 patent discloses using quadrature amplitude modulation for the telephony data and binary phase shift keying (BPSK) modulation techniques for the synchronization channel and for IOC control data to provide robustness in the system. Id. at 45. Petitioner cites the Declaration of Dr. Stark to support its contention that one of ordinary skill would have combined these teachings of the ’450 and ’219 patents. We are persuaded by this testimony. Claim 14 recites that the upstream control channel on which the bitstream containing the reservation request is transmitted in step (a) of claim 1 is one of a plurality of upstream control channels. As Petitioner notes, and we agree, the ’219 patent discloses that a plurality of control channels are interspersed among the telephony channels of the second frequency bandwidth. Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1008, col. 5, ll. 49–51; col. 4, ll. 59–66). Petitioner cites testimony of Dr. Stark to support persuasively its contention that the disclosure of at least 3 separate data channels in the ’450 patent would suggest to a person of ordinary skill that two or more control channels could be used in the upstream channel. Id. at 46 (citing Stark Decl. ¶ 201). The three data channels discussed in the ’450 patent are a forward channel outbound from the NCT, a reservation channel inbound from the PT, and a return channel inbound from the PT. Ex. 1005, col. 4, ll. 50–57. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence presented.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 6,370,153 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,370,153
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.