- Intel Corporation / Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 1, 2017 · IPR2016-00290 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–9, 15, and 17 are unpatentable as anticipated by Sakamoto; claims 10–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Sakamoto and Cederbaum.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenOther
“Owner’s election not to file a Patent Owner Preliminary Response does not implicate any adverse inference. 37 C.F.R.§ 42.107(a); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. 77 Fed Reg. 48756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). However, as to the Patent Owner Response after institution of trial, under our Scheduling Order “Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.” Paper 11, 3; see In re Nuvasive, 842 F. 3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(finding that NuVasive waived public accessibility arguments in its Preliminary Response by failing to challenge public accessibility during the trial phase, i.e. by not addressing public accessibility in its Trial Response and explicitly declining to make further arguments at oral hearing). In this case, Patent Owner “defers to the Board” to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated the challenged claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. PO Resp. 2. There is no argument or evidence, other than that presented in the Petition and the accompanying Exhibits, for us to consider. Nevertheless, “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ . . . and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(e)).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“meaning to the terms not construed. We applied the broadest reasonable interpretation to the following term that required construction. Noting a claim construction dispute in co-pending district court litigation, Petitioner proposed that we construe the “diffusion region formed in said substrate” to mean “conductive terminal region, such as a source or drain, that contains dopants implanted in the silicon substrate.” Pet. 24. As discussed in the Decision to Institute, we determined that the subject matter of the claims concerns a local interconnect between a gate and a diffusion region and that there was no need to further construe “the diffusion region formed in said substrate” for purposes of this decision. Dec. to Inst. 5–6. Based on the complete record now before us, we discern no reason to change the constructions.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s disclosure of softening and reflowing BoroPhosphoSilicate Glass (BPSG) film to form insulating layer 9, stating that BPSG is a type of silicon oxide. Id. at 44–45 (citing Bravman Decl. ¶ 91; Ex. 1115, at 185).5 We credit Dr. Bravman’s testimony and are persuaded that insulating layer 9 is formed of silicon oxide.” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“embodiments, which all delineate p-well region 2 and Sakamoto’s fifth embodiment in which p-well region 2 is not shown, based on the record in this proceeding, we are persuaded that the evidence supports Petitioner’s contention that the implanted p-well region is part of the silicon substrate.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 5,965,924 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 5,965,924 - Intel Corporation / Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 1, 2017 · IPR2016-01314 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8–12 are unpatentable as anticipated by Heath under § 102(b), because Heath discloses every limitation of the challenged claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“preliminarily interpreted the “angle limitation” set forth above—i.e., the limitation reciting “a side of the electrically insulative spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is either a right angle or an acute angle of more than 85°”8—to mean “a side of the electrically insulative spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is greater than 85° and less than or equal to 90°.” Dec. on Inst. 8–14. Importantly, we were unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the angle of a side of the insulating spacer must be obtained “through the use of a low selectivity etch” (Prelim. Resp. 15–19) and determined that the challenged claims do not require the use of a low selectivity etch. Dec. on Inst. 8–12. 8 Claim 1 includes essentially the same limitation, the only difference being that claim 1 recites “insulating spacer” instead of “electrically insulative spacer” recited in claim 8. Tracking the language of the claims, the ’552 patent uses the terms “insulating spacer” and “insulative spacer” interchangeably throughout the written description. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, col. 6, ll. 13–65; see also id. at col. 13, ll. 55–62 (using “the spacer portions of the insulating material” and “the spacer portions [of] insulative material” interchangeably). The parties also appear to use the terms “insulating spacer” and “insulative spacer” interchangeably in the Petition and the Preliminary Response. See, e.g., Pet. 28–29; Prelim. Resp. 15–16, 19. Upon considering the complete record, we deem the terms “insulating spacer” and “insulative spacer” to be interchangeable and to have no meaningful difference in their meaning in the context of the ’552 patent. The parties do not present additional claim construction arguments in their Patent Owner Response and Petitioner Reply. Upon considering the complete record, we discern no reason to deviate from our construction, which was adopted from the parties’ agreed construction at the district court (Dec. on Inst. 14 (citing Ex. 1124 (Dist. Ct. Claim Construction Order), 7– 8)), and maintain our construction of the “angle limitation” to mean “a side of the electrically insulative spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is greater than 85° and less than or equal to 90°.”” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“1. Principles of Law A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 only if a single prior art reference expressly or inherently describes each and every limitation set forth in the claim. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, a reference cannot anticipate “unless [it] discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed[,] but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although the elements must be arranged in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We analyze this asserted ground based on anticipation with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We credit Dr. Bravman’s testimony and are persuaded that sources and/or drains are known in the art to be electrically conductive diffusion regions of a transistor structure, and that polysilicon used to form gate electrode 16 of Heath is an electrically conductive material. See Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 79, 80. Therefore, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence that Heath discloses “(a) a first electrically conductive material formed in and/or on a surface of a substrate” and “(b) . . . a second electrically conductive material formed on the substrate,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 6,784,552 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,784,552 - Intel Corporation / Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 1, 2017 · IPR2016-00288 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8–12 are unpatentable because Heath anticipates each challenged claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“art reference expressly or inherently describes each and every limitation set forth in the claim. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, a reference cannot anticipate “unless [it] discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed[,] but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although the elements must be arranged in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We analyze this asserted ground based on anticipation with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 12
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“preliminarily interpreted the “angle limitation” set forth above—i.e., the limitation reciting “a side of the electrically insulative spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is either a right angle or an acute angle of more than 85°”8—to mean “a side of the electrically insulative spacer has an angle relative to the substrate surface that is greater than 85° and less than or equal to 90°.” Dec. on Inst. 8–14. Importantly, we were unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the angle of a side of the insulating spacer must be obtained “through the use of a low selectivity etch” (Prelim. Resp. 15–19) and determined that the challenged claims do not require the use of a low selectivity etch. Dec. on Inst. 8–12.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“art reference expressly or inherently describes each and every limitation set forth in the claim. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, a reference cannot anticipate “unless [it] discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed[,] but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although the elements must be arranged in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We analyze this asserted ground based on anticipation with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“art reference expressly or inherently describes each and every limitation set forth in the claim. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Further, a reference cannot anticipate “unless [it] discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed[,] but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although the elements must be arranged in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We analyze this asserted ground based on anticipation with the principles identified above in mind.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 6,784,552 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,784,552 - Intel Corporation / Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 1, 2017 · IPR2016-01313 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 14, and 16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Sakamoto; claims 4–6 and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Sakamoto and Cederbaum.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“BACKGROUND On June 8, 2016 we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–6, 13, 14, and 16 of U. S. Patent No. 5,965,924 (“the ’924 Patent”) based on a Petition filed by Intel Corporation. Paper 12 (“Dec. to Inst.”). DSS Technology Management, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) waived its right to file a Preliminary Response. On August 29, 2016 we instituted inter partes review of the same claims on the same grounds based on a substantially identical petition filed by Qualcomm Incorporated, Globalfoundries Inc., Globalfoundries U.S. Inc., Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC & Co. KG, Globalfoundries Dresden Module Two LLC & Co. KG, in IPR2016-01313. We then joined IPR2016-00289 and IPR2016-01313. Papers 18, 19. In this joined proceeding, we refer to Intel Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated, Globalfoundries Inc., Globalfoundries U.S. Inc., Globalfoundries Dresden Module One LLC & Co. KG, Globalfoundries Dresden Module Two LLC & Co. KG, collectively as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“meaning to the terms not construed. We applied the broadest reasonable interpretation to the following term that required construction. Noting a claim construction dispute in co-pending district court litigation, Petitioner proposed that we construe the “diffusion region formed in said substrate” to mean “conductive terminal region, such as a source or drain, that contains dopants implanted in the silicon substrate.” Pet. 25. As discussed in the Decision to Institute, we determined that the subject matter of the claims concerns a local interconnect between a gate and a diffusion region and that there was no need to further construe “the diffusion region formed in said substrate” for purposes of this decision. Dec. to Inst. 5–6. Based on the complete record now before us, we discern no reason to change the constructions.” slip op. at 5
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“not shown, we are persuaded that the evidence supports the proposition that the implanted p-well region is part of the silicon substrate. Based on this analysis, we are persuaded that Sakamoto discloses element (a) a silicon substrate with a top surface. As to element (b), we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Sakamoto discloses a diffusion region formed in said substrate. Element (b) also recites that the diffusion region is adjacent said top surface. Having determined that the p-well region is part of the substrate, we agree that Figure 1 of Sakamoto illustrates a diffusion region in the form of source/drain region 7 adjacent to the top surface of the substrate.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner persuasively argues that the evidence supports the conclusion that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cederbaum with those of Sakamoto because they both teach the same type of device and are directed to the same problem, i.e., stacking transistors in an SRAM. Pet. 51. Petitioner points out that Cederbaum and Sakamoto also disclose nearly identical structures with nearly identical components, with both employing an electrically conducting plug within an opening that contains a sidewall spacer to directly connect a diffusion region to a gate. Id. at 52–53. Petitioner cites Cederbaum’s disclosure of materials, such as refractory metals, to be used in forming the conductive plug and Sakamoto’s discussion of the advantages to using a conductive plug of increased conductivity. Id. at 53–54. Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to replace the polycrystalline plug 15 of Sakamoto with a refractory metal plug of tungsten, as disclosed by Cederbaum. Id. at 51. This feature (“said electrically conducting plug is a refractory metal plug”) is recited in claim 5 of the ’924 Patent. Claim 4 recites a metal plug and claim 6 recites the electrically conducting plug is formed of a material selected for the group consisting of titanium, tantalum, molybdenum, and tungsten. Petitioner cites Cederbaum’s disclosure at column 9, lines 31–65 as disclosing a tungsten conducting plug. Id. at 49–50. Claim 13 of the ’924 Patent depends from claim 1 and recites the further limitation “said conducting plug comprises an outer glue layer and a plug material therein.” Petitioner cites Cederbaum as disclosing an outer glue titanium nitride (TiN) layer and an inner plug material, i.e., tungsten. Pet. 55. Petitioner notes that one of ordinary skill would have understood that because the TiN is deposited in opening 28 of Cederbaum before the tungsten is deposited, the TiN layer is an outer glue layer and the tungsten is the inner plug material. Id at 55–56 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 9, ll. 31–47). Petitioner further notes that Cederbaum discloses the TiN layer acts as an outer glue layer because it improves adhesion of the inner tungsten layer. Id. at 56 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 9, ll. 36–43).” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 5,965,924 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 5,965,924 - Intel Corporation / Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v. DSS Technology Management, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 1, 2017 · IPR2016-00289 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 14, and 16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Sakamoto; claims 4–6 and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Sakamoto and Cederbaum.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“CLAIM CONSTRUCTION In our Decision to Institute, we applied the ordinary and customary meaning to the terms not construed. We applied the broadest reasonable interpretation to the following term that required construction. Noting a claim construction dispute in co-pending district court litigation, Petitioner proposed that we construe the “diffusion region formed in said substrate” to mean “conductive terminal region, such as a source or drain, that contains dopants implanted in the silicon substrate.” Pet. 25. As discussed in the Decision to Institute, we determined that the subject matter of the claims concerns a local interconnect between a gate and a diffusion region and that there was no need to further construe “the diffusion region formed in said substrate” for purposes of this decision. Dec. to Inst. 5–6. Based on the complete record now before us, we discern no reason to change the constructions.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites that the insulator layer is formed of material selected from the group consisting of silicon oxide and silicon nitride. Petitioner cites Sakamoto’s disclosure of softening and reflowing BoroPhosphoSilicate Glass (BPSG) film to form insulating layer 9, stating that BPSG is a type of silicon oxide. Id. at 46 (citing Bravman Decl. ¶ 90; Ex. 1015, 185).5 We credit Dr. Bravman’s testimony and are persuaded that insulating layer 9 is formed of silicon oxide.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“not shown, we are persuaded that the evidence supports the proposition that the implanted p-well region is part of the silicon substrate. Based on this analysis, we are persuaded that Sakamoto discloses element (a) a silicon substrate with a top surface. As to element (b), we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Sakamoto discloses a diffusion region formed in said substrate. Element (b) also recites that the diffusion region is adjacent said top surface. Having determined that the p-well region is part of the substrate, we agree that Figure 1 of Sakamoto illustrates a diffusion region in the form of source/drain region 7 adjacent to the top surface of the substrate.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner persuasively argues that the evidence supports the conclusion that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Cederbaum with those of Sakamoto because they both teach the same type of device and are directed to the same problem, i.e., stacking transistors in an SRAM. Pet. 51. Petitioner points out that Cederbaum and Sakamoto also disclose nearly identical structures with nearly identical components, with both employing an electrically conducting plug within an opening that contains a sidewall spacer to directly connect a diffusion region to a gate. Id. at 52–53. Petitioner cites Cederbaum’s disclosure of materials, such as refractory metals, to be used in forming the conductive plug and Sakamoto’s discussion of the advantages to using a conductive plug of increased conductivity. Id. at 53–54. Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to replace the polycrystalline plug 15 of Sakamoto with a refractory metal plug of tungsten, as disclosed by Cederbaum. Id. at 51. This feature (“said electrically conducting plug is a refractory metal plug”) is recited in claim 5 of the ’924 Patent. Claim 4 recites a metal plug and claim 6 recites the electrically conducting plug is formed of a material selected for the group consisting of titanium, tantalum, molybdenum, and tungsten. Petitioner cites Cederbaum’s disclosure at column 9, lines 31–65 as disclosing a tungsten conducting plug. Id. at 49–50.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 5,965,924 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 5,965,924 - Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00306 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 63 was not shown unpatentable because Spinney does not disclose performing the selecting and determining steps in parallel.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“First, we give no credit to Dr. Chao’s opinion in this regard because it is not supported by Spinney. Specifically, we give no weight to Dr. Chao’s opinion that “Spinney makes clear that the CAM lookup and the hashing function (i.e., the forwarding lookup) take place at the same time.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Instead, we find that the parallel operations in Spinney are confined to (1) applying the hash function to the 48-bit address and (2) performing a CAM lookup of the same 48-bit address. For example, Spinney discloses in Figure 8 that incoming address field 85 is subjected to hash function 86 to produce another 48-bit value. See id. at Fig. 8, 15:21−24; 16:16−19 (“The 48-bit destination address 61 from an incoming packet is simultaneously subjected to the hash function 86 and a CAM match” (emphasis added)), 16:44−46 (“this compare in the CAM is done in parallel with the hash function” (emphasis added)). The application of the hash function and the performance of the hash lookup are two different operations that produce different results. The hash function application produces a hashed 48-bit value, while the hash lookup results in pointing to an entry in the translation table that includes the gigaheader information, for processing the packet. See id. at Fig. 8 (identifying hash function 86 applied to input address 85, resulting in hashed address 89); 15:60−63. Spinney further discloses that the hash lookup is performed only if a CAM match is not found and, therefore, must occur after the CAM lookup is performed. Id. at 16:20–26 (“[I]f a CAM match is found in CAM 23, an index into the translation table 94 is immediately generated as indicated by the line 100. If not, the 16-bit field 88 of the hashed address 87 is used to index into the hash table 89 . . . .” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“is not supported by Spinney. Specifically, we give no weight to Dr. Chao’s opinion that “Spinney makes clear that the CAM lookup and the hashing function (i.e., the forwarding lookup) take place at the same time.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Instead, we find that the parallel operations in Spinney are confined to (1) applying the hash function to the 48-bit address and (2) performing a CAM lookup of the same 48-bit address. For example, Spinney discloses in Figure 8 that incoming address field 85 is subjected to hash function 86 to produce another 48-bit value. See id. at Fig. 8, 15:21−24; 16:16−19 (“The 48-bit destination address 61 from an incoming packet is simultaneously subjected to the hash function 86 and a CAM match” (emphasis added)), 16:44−46 (“this compare in the CAM is done in parallel with the hash function” (emphasis added)). The application of the hash function and the performance of the hash lookup are two different operations that produce different results. The hash function application produces a hashed 48-bit value, while the hash lookup results in pointing to an entry in the translation table that includes the gigaheader information, for processing the packet. See id. at Fig. 8 (identifying hash function 86 applied to input address 85, resulting in hashed address 89); 15:60−63. Spinney further discloses that the hash lookup is performed only if a CAM match is not found and, therefore, must occur after the CAM lookup is performed. Id. at 16:20–26 (“[I]f a CAM match is found in CAM 23, an index into the translation table 94 is immediately generated as indicated by the line 100. If not, the 16-bit field 88 of the hashed address 87 is used to index into the hash table 89 . . . .” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 7,023,853 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 7,023,853 - Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00303 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 are unpatentable as obvious over Huey and ATM UNI; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“PO Mot. 13–14. A motion to exclude is the wrong vehicle to challenge public availability, which is a substantive issue that goes to the sufficiency of the evidence, not to admissibility at issue here. FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, slip. op., Paper 113 at 4 (PTAB September 3, 2015) (“A motion to exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence.”); see also 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“A motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). For the reasons above, we do not exclude Exhibit 1028.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). To qualify as a prior art printed publication, the reference must have been disseminated or otherwise made accessible to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter to which the document relates prior to the critical date. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding both hair brush art and toothbrush art to be analogous to a claim to a hair brush) (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. (citations omitted). The scope of the field of endeavor is a factual determination based on the scope of the application's written description and claims. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326. slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“There are two problems with Petitioner’s assertion. First, Petitioner has not shown a reason to combine Kogge with Huey and the ATM UNI Specification. Second, to the extent this reference is used to show the scope and content of the art at the time of the invention, Kogge makes it clear that parallelism and pipelining are different concepts that are “generally discernably different in their general approach.” Ex. 1033, 1. Petitioner has not explained how Kogge shows that putting packets through the pipeline without waiting for the previous packet to finish would be considered operating in parallel given that this reference distinguishes parallel operation from pipeline operation. Petitioner argued at the oral hearing that Patent Owner was advocating “a particular flavor of parallelism, as opposed to what’s understood by normal parallel pipelining.” Tr. 41:6–14. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant has explained what “normal parallel pipelining” is or what the basis is for us to define “normal parallel pipelining.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Huey to meet the limitation of performing at least two of said steps “in parallel using a pipeline.”” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,377,577 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,377,577 - Department Of Justice v. Envisionit, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 3, 2017 · IPR2017-00186 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 14, 15, 23, 27, or 30 unpatentable on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. We generally accept a petitioner’s identification of real parties in interest at the time of filing the petition. Petitioner represents that IBM has not funded, directed, or otherwise controlled the preparation of the Petition in this proceeding. Pet. 4. Patent Owner introduces no evidence that reasonably brings into question Petitioner’s identification of real parties in interest. Moreover, Patent Owner has not shown persuasively that the indemnification clause at issue, which gives IBM an “opportunity as is afforded by applicable laws, rules, or regulations to participate in its defense,” gives IBM an opportunity to direct or control this proceeding.8 On this record, we are not persuaded that IBM is a real party in interest.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner
“Linköping University in Norrköping, Sweden, and is alleged to have been made available over the Internet. Thus, to determine a date on which Gundlegård was publicly accessible, we look to evidence of the library’s cataloging and indexing practices and any search capability of the library’s website. See Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348; Voter Verified, 698 F.3d at 1380; SRI, 511 F.3d at 1196.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The parties propose competing constructions of “broadcast.” Pet. 10– 11; Prelim. Resp. 14–19. Patent Owner also proposes a construction for “validating,” recited in claim 14. Prelim. Resp. 19–21. Nevertheless, we need not construe these or any other terms for the purposes of this Decision to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of its declarant, Mr. Randall A. Snyder, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, engineering, physics, mathematics, or other technical field, along with three to five years of practical cellular network and protocol design and software development experience. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not propose a level of skill or contest Petitioner’s statement. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill 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). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,103,719 - Department Of Justice v. Envisionit, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 1, 2017 · IPR2017-00183 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 11–13, 42, 47, and 57 unpatentable on the asserted obviousness and anticipation grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner. We generally accept a petitioner’s identification of real parties in interest at the time of filing the petition. Petitioner represents that IBM has not funded, directed, or otherwise controlled the preparation of the Petition in this proceeding. Pet. 4. Patent Owner introduces no evidence that reasonably brings into question Petitioner’s identification of real parties in interest. Moreover, Patent Owner has not shown persuasively that the indemnification clause at issue, which gives IBM an “opportunity as is afforded by applicable laws, rules, or regulations to participate in its defense,” gives IBM an opportunity to direct or control this proceeding.1 On this record, we are not persuaded that IBM is a real party in interest.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“1. Petitioner has not shown that Gundlegård was publicly accessible Gundlegård states on its face that it is a master’s thesis kept at Linköping University in Norrköping, Sweden, and is alleged to have been made available over the Internet. Thus, to determine a date on which Gundlegård was publicly accessible, we look to evidence of the library’s cataloging and indexing practices and any search capability of the library’s website. See Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348; Voter Verified, 698 F.3d at 1380; SRI, 511 F.3d at 1196.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“III. CONCLUSION Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that claims 1, 11–13, 42, 47, and 57 are unpatentable. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review is not instituted for claims 1, 11–13, 42, 47, and 57 of U.S. Patent No. 7,693,938 B2.” slip op. at 31
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, engineering, physics, mathematics, or other technical field, along with three to five years of practical cellular network and protocol design and software development experience. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not propose a level of skill or contest Petitioner’s statement. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill 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); 3 The record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 16
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,693,938 - Department Of Justice v. Envisionit, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 26, 2017 · IPR2017-00180 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 17, and 23 were unpatentable as obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner. We generally accept a petitioner’s identification of real parties in interest at the time of filing the petition. Petitioner represents that IBM has not funded, directed, or otherwise controlled the preparation of the Petition in this proceeding. Pet. 3. Patent Owner introduces no evidence that reasonably brings into question Petitioner’s identification of real parties in interest. Moreover, Patent Owner has not shown persuasively that the indemnification clause at issue, which gives IBM an “opportunity as is afforded by applicable laws, rules, or regulations to participate in its defense,” gives IBM an opportunity to direct or control this proceeding.1 On this record, we are not persuaded that IBM is a real party in interest.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“1. Petitioner has not shown that Gundlegård was publicly accessible Gundlegård states on its face that it is a master’s thesis kept at Linköping University in Norrköping, Sweden, and is alleged to have been made available over the Internet. Thus, to determine a date on which Gundlegård was publicly accessible, we look to evidence of the library’s cataloging and indexing practices and any search capability of the library’s website. See Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1348; Voter Verified, 698 F.3d at 1380; SRI, 511 F.3d at 1196. The Petition does not provide a detailed statement of Petitioner’s arguments as to the public accessibility of Gundlegård. Rather, Petitioner simply states “[a]s documented by the declaration of Amelia Nuss (Ex. 1021), the thesis was published at least as early as October 27, 2003.” Pet. 14. The detailed basis for Petitioner’s contention is stated in the Nuss Declaration. Patent Owner argues that this constitutes an improper incorporation by reference of arguments from the Nuss Declaration into the Petition, in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Prelim. Resp. 20–21 n.4. We share Patent Owner’s concern. Nevertheless, we agree with Patent Owner that the Nuss Declaration, even if considered, does not support a finding that Gundlegård was publicly available.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Although the parties propose competing constructions of “broadcast” (Pet. 7–8; Prelim. Resp. 14–18), we need not construe this or any other term for the purposes of this Decision to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, engineering, physics, mathematics, or other technical field, along with three to five years of practical cellular network and protocol design and software development experience. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not propose a level of skill or contest Petitioner’s statement. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill 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); 4 The record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,136,954
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.