- Nxtgen Toys, LLC v. Zipstring, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 20, 2026 · IPR2024-01213 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 12, and 15–17 are unpatentable; substitute claim 27 is allowed, while substitute claims 21–26 and 28 are denied as obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “was typically a person with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering, physics, or other science or 6 Patent Owner does not rely on any objective indicia of nonobviousness in this proceeding. engineering based degree that [was] familiar with general principles of mechanics and aerodynamics with at least two years of experience in product design and development in the field of toys or other amusement type devices.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–6, 22–26). Patent Owner states that it submitted the following proposal for a POSITA in the related district court litigation: “[a POSITA] would have had at least a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Aerospace Engineering, Industrial Design, Product Design, or similar field, with at least two years industry experience in one of these fields, and such POSITA would have been familiar with general principles of mechanics, fluid mechanics and aerodynamics.” PO Resp. 4–5. We note that the parties’ proposals overlap considerably, and neither party argues the inadequacy of the other party’s proposal or that any patentability issue in this case turns on the resolution of this issue. We find Petitioner’s definition consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’774 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). We would arrive at the same findings and conclusions in this Decision if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner contends that no “term requires construction to resolve the invalidity grounds presented in this Petition since the prior art renders claims 1–4, 12, and 15–17 unpatentable under any reasonable interpretation of the claims.” Pet. 7. Patent Owner argues that it “does not believe express claim constructions are necessary during this proceeding because the claims can readily be given their ordinary and customary meaning in the context of the patent at the time it was filed.” PO Resp. 5. Based on the parties’ positions and our view of the record, we need not expressly construe any claim limitations to resolve the issues in this Decision. To the extent that any implicit claim construction issues relate to the issues raised by the parties, we address them in the context of the parties’ patentability arguments below.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“string, and that adding Scorch’s slot removes this arguably inconvenient process by allowing insertion and removal of a string without removing and reinstalling any aspects of the housing. See Pet 85–86 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–175; Ex. 1007, 3:30–3:53, 6:03; Ex. 1008, 3:46–4:45); Pet. Reply 18–20 (citing in part Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (Dr. Janét’s testimony that Wagner’s removal and reinstallation of a cover “may be viewed as an inconvenient process”)). Making insertion and removal of the string easier and quicker provides a notable advantage over Wagner’s existing device. See id. Scorch itself supports this argument and the related expert testimony because it discusses insertion and removal of strings and stated that the slot allows a user to “swap them out really quick.” Ex. 1007, 3:30–53. Petitioner also persuasively argues that a POSITA would know how to add the slot while maintaining the proper operation of the device, such as allowing insertion and removal of the string and avoiding inadvertent exiting of the string from the device. See Pet. 86–87 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 175–176; Ex. 1007, 4:00–30, Ex. 1008, 2:49–52); Pet. Reply 19, 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176). We find Petitioner’s arguments and reasoning in support of adding Scorch’s slot to Wagner’s housing straightforward and persuasive. Patent Owner’s arguments against the combination do not directly refute Petitioner’s reasoning or cast doubt on Scorch’s statement that its slot enables “quick” insertion and removal of a string—quicker than Wagner’s method that requires removal and replacement of a cover on its housing. See PO Resp. 16–22; PO Sur-reply 14–20; Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (acknowledging inconvenience of Wagner’s existing process for insertion and removal of a string). Patent Owner suggests that Petitioner’s proposed combination fails to take into consideration certain drawbacks such as the risk of inadvertent string exit from the housing or slot, but Petitioner expressly addresses such concerns in the Petition. See PO Resp. 18 (stating that Scorch’s slotted funnel may allow the string to “shoot out the slot” and that Scorch addresses this by adding “a bent wire” to “prevent the string from coming out the side”); PO Sur-reply 16–17; Pet. 86–87 (arguing that Wagner’s flanges would help to trap the string in place, but if not, Scorch’s additional structures could be used to restring the string and “to further reduce the risk of a string inadvertently exiting” the device). We agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to incorporate Scorch’s slot without causing inadvertent removal of the string—using structures already present in Wagner and Scorch—and the need to add such unclaimed structurers does not teach away from the combination as Patent Owner suggests. See Pet. 86–87; PO Resp. 22. We also agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to make minor modifications, if necessary, to allow insertion and removal of the string around Wagner’s flanges. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176).” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“refute Petitioner’s reasoning or cast doubt on Scorch’s statement that its slot enables “quick” insertion and removal of a string—quicker than Wagner’s method that requires removal and replacement of a cover on its housing. See PO Resp. 16–22; PO Sur-reply 14–20; Ex. 2002 ¶ 187 (acknowledging inconvenience of Wagner’s existing process for insertion and removal of a string). Patent Owner suggests that Petitioner’s proposed combination fails to take into consideration certain drawbacks such as the risk of inadvertent string exit from the housing or slot, but Petitioner expressly addresses such concerns in the Petition. See PO Resp. 18 (stating that Scorch’s slotted funnel may allow the string to “shoot out the slot” and that Scorch addresses this by adding “a bent wire” to “prevent the string from coming out the side”); PO Sur-reply 16–17; Pet. 86–87 (arguing that Wagner’s flanges would help to trap the string in place, but if not, Scorch’s additional structures could be used to restring the string and “to further reduce the risk of a string inadvertently exiting” the device). We agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to incorporate Scorch’s slot without causing inadvertent removal of the string—using structures already present in Wagner and Scorch—and the need to add such unclaimed structurers does not teach away from the combination as Patent Owner suggests. See Pet. 86–87; PO Resp. 22. We also agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would understand how to make minor modifications, if necessary, to allow insertion and removal of the string around Wagner’s flanges. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 174–176). At best, Patent Owner’s arguments on this issue establish potential drawbacks in Petitioner’s proposed combination, but drawbacks alone do not defeat Petitioner’s obviousness rationale that includes readily apparent benefits. See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit . . . should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.”); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine “). In addition, even if Patent Owner were correct that Wagner’s existing design works as well as Petitioner’s proposed combination, given all of the tradeoffs involved, that would not fatally undermine Petitioner’s showing. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (obviousness does not require that the proposed combination “is the preferred, or most desirable, combination”). On this record, Petitioner’s (and Scorch’s) stated advantages that are achieved when adding Scorch’s slot to Wagner’s housing adequately support Petitioner’s motivation to combine rationale.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 11,674,774 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,674,774 - Adb Safegate Sweden AB / Adb Safegate BV et al. v. Honeywell International Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 12, 2025 · PGR2023-00053 · APJ James P Calve · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1, 6–10, and 13–20 are also unpatentable over Berkmo, and claims 1–20 over Berkmo and Richman.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have “held at least a degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a similar discipline, with at least two years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience designing, planning, or implementing sensor networks using LIDAR, radar and/or cameras and corresponding data analysis” and “[a]dditional work or research experience can substitute for less or different education, and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18– 23). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill as articulated above. Petitioner’s description appears to be consistent with the prior art cited and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’349 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We reject Patent Owner’s interpretation because it limits the claims to an exemplary embodiment that “can, for example, provide the remaining distance and the horizontal deviation with respect to the center line of a path” (Ex. 1001, 10:8–11), and it reads limitations of that embodiment into the claims. Absent a lexicographic definition or a disavowal, such claim interpretations are not permissible. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312, 1316 (claims are given their ordinary, customary meaning in the context of the entire patent and the specification absent a lexicographic definition or a disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope by the inventor); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’”) (citation omitted). Patent Owner has not asserted a definition or a disclaimer to support its interpretation. PO Resp. 16–17. The parties agree that “directional guidance” includes “navigational instructions” and “maneuvering guidance information.” PO Resp. 16 (“the claims make clear that this guidance refers to the navigational instructions to be provided to the pilot guiding the airplane”), 17 (a skilled artisan “reading the challenged claims in light of the specification would understand that ‘directional guidance’ refers to navigational instructions including the horizontal deviation with respect to the center line of a path”); Reply 21 (Berkmo teaches providing “pilot maneuvering guidance information . . . for aiding a pilot of the approaching aircraft towards [a] parking position”); Pet. 54 (Berkmo provides maneuvering guidance information). We interpret “directional guidance” as navigational instructions and maneuvering guidance information. This interpretation is consistent with the claims, which do not recite features of “directional guidance,” much less a horizontal deviation with respect to a center line as Patent Owner asserts.” slip op. at 10
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the merging recites mental processes because the algorithms described in the specification (Ex. 1001, 8:50–9:10) can be performed as mental processes. Pet. 20–22; Reply 9–11; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–58; Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1351–52, 1353–54 (receiving time stamped synchronized phasor measurements at different points of an electric power grid and analyzing and updating the measurements in real time using limits, sensitivities, and rates of change of dynamic stability metrics derived from voltages, power flows, phase angles, damping, and oscillation modes recite mental processes); id. at 1354 (analyzing data by mental steps or mathematical algorithms is an abstract mental process). Merging data by transforming and converting it from one format to another is an abstract idea. See AI Visualize, Inc. v Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 97 F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“But ‘converting information from one format to another . . . is an abstract idea.’” (citation omitted); creating virtual views in real time by “creating the requested frames of the requested views from the volume visualization dataset” created a virtual view from the existing volume visualization dataset as “abstract data manipulation”); Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the method receives, displays, converts, stores, and transmits digital video data using result-based functional language); FICEP Corp. v. Peddinghaus Corp., No. 2022-1590, 2023 WL 5346043, *3–4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2023) (the focus of the advance is on automating the identification, extraction, and transfer of a 3D rendering of an object by a CAD design model including dimensions and intersection parameters without specifying how intersection parameter data was generated or used to create a design model and therefore encompasses a human deriving intersection parameters and adding this data to the design model for extraction); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A] process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.”) (quoting Parker v Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978) (“If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.”)); MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) (mathematical relationships include converting binary coded decimal numerals to pure binary numerals as did the claims in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972)); see also Tr. 22:24–25:23.” slip op. at 20
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“The ordered combination of elements recites no more than when the elements are considered individually and thus does not provide an inventive concept. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “[w]hen considered individually or in combination with the other claimed elements, the reliance on this merged data from a camera and LIDAR/RADAR sensor is itself an inventive concept because it was not conventional and improves the technology of aircraft tracking and guidance.” PO Resp. 49–50. Merging data from two different sensors is part of the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept that makes that abstract idea patent eligible. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1291–92; Guidance at 56. “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91. “It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” Id. at 1290. Even if merging camera and LIDAR/RADAR sensor data is treated as an additional element, the description of the point cloud process and iterated point cloud algorithm indicates Patent Owner did not invent or improve the merging process. Ex. 1001, 8:64–9:40; MPEP § 2106.05(d)I.2. (a generic description indicates that elements are conventional enough that no further description is needed to satisfy § 112(a)); see AI Visualize, 97 F.4th at 1379 (converting data from one format to another is an abstract idea); Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 836 F. App’x 900, 903 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (encoding and decoding image data and converting data formats are abstract ideas). Dr. Campbell and Mr. Wilson testify that merging data is known for detecting and tracking objects and navigation. Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 41–51, 56–59; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–65, 81–87; Ex. 1045, 20:6–23:18. A “data fusion process” is not claimed, much less one of any particular features. See PO Resp. 50. Nor do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of sensors. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–67, 83; iLife, 839 F. App’x at 538 (because sensors for measuring static and dynamic acceleration were known, and claim 1 did not recite unconventional means for processing that data, sensing and processing the static and dynamic acceleration information using generic components did not transform the nature of claim 1 into patent eligible subject matter).” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 11,538,349 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,538,349 - PTAB · Mar 11, 2024 · PGR2023-00053 · APJ James P Calve · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds because the petition showed it was more likely than not that at least one challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) and the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute post-grant review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- BurdenInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) and the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute post-grant review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a similar discipline, with at least two years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience designing, planning, or implementing sensor networks using LIDAR, radar and/or cameras and corresponding data analysis” and “[a]dditional work or research experience can substitute for less or different education, and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18– 23). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’349 patent and the prior art of record, and we adopt it for consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that “[n]o terms require construction to determine that claims 1–20 are invalid under §§ 101, 102, 103.” Pet. 9. At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the construction of any term or phrase. On the present record, we determine that we do not need to construe any claim terms to reach our decision. See Realtime Data, LLC. v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,538,349 - PTAB · Mar 23, 2023 · PGR2022-00058 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–17 on all asserted grounds, finding it more likely than not that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 324 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 324(a) provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence), the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response (including its supporting testimonial evidence), the Preliminary Reply, and the Preliminary Sur-reply, we determine that the information presented shows that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute post-grant review on all” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. 18 (“[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner uses Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.”). We discern no reason, at this stage of the proceeding, to question Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, which is supported by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“Section 42.6(a)(3) states that “[a]rguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.” The purpose of this rule to prevent a party from circumventing page limits and to conserve Board resources. See Cisco, 10 (“incorporation by reference of numerous arguments from Dr. Roy’s 250-page Declaration into the Petition serves to circumvent the page limits imposed on petitions for inter partes review, while imposing on our time by asking us to sift through over 250 pages of Dr. Roy’s Declaration . . . to locate the specific arguments corresponding to the numerous paragraphs cited to support Petitioner’s assertions.”). Patent Owner does not identify specific arguments in Mr. Plunkett’s declaration that are not in the Petition, or specific conclusory statements within the Petition that are overly reliant on the Plunkett Declaration. Nor have we found any improper incorporation in the course of our own review. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we should ignore any portion of the Plunkett Declaration on this basis.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“Claim terms using the word “means” are presumed to invoke § 112(f), and terms without the word “means” are presumed not to invoke this subsection. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Because “server gateway” does not include the word “means,” it is presumed not to be a means-plus-function claim term under § 112(f). This presumption can be rebutted, however, by demonstrating that the term fails to “recite sufficiently definite structure,” or recites “function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Id. at 1349 (internal quotation marks omitted). It is Patent Owner’s burden to produce sufficient evidence to overcome this presumption. See Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“From a procedural standpoint, this presumption imposes on the party challenging the presumption the burden of going forward with evidence . . . that a person of ordinary skill in the art believes the term does not recite sufficiently definite structure.”) (internal citation, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). There does not appear to be a dispute, at this stage of the proceeding, that “server gateway” denotes at least some structure to persons of ordinary skill: a server connecting a game user computational device and a blockchain. Thus, we are not persuaded, on the current record, that “server gateway” is a “generic term[] or black box recitation[] of structure or abstractions.” MTD Prods. v. Iancu, 933 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Patent Owner nonetheless argues that although the term may recite some structure, the recited structure is insufficient to perform “the recited functions,” which Patent Owner asserts are: (1) “operating a blockchain” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,189,131 - Tetra Tech Canada Inc. v. Georgetown Rail Equipment CompanyAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 25, 2020 · IPR2019-00620 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 7–13, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious; the contingent motion to amend with substitute claims 30–44 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, physics, or a related field, and at least four years of experience (or the academic equivalent) in the field of computer or machine vision.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 42). Patent Owner states that, for purposes of its Response, “Patent Owner does not contest the level of ordinary skill in the art asserted by Petitioner.” PO Resp. 3. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. In light of the record now before us, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be an individual with at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, physics, or a related field, and at least four years of experience (or the academic equivalent) in the field of computer or machine vision. Ex. 1004 ¶ 42. The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the references themselves. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“On the full record now before us, we determine it is not necessary to construe any claim term expressly to resolve the parties’ dispute. Vivid Techs., Inc., 200 F.3d at 803 (“Only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). D. Prior Art” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Additionally, by providing the declaration of Ms. Watters, Petitioner has taken further steps to provide testimony that Uzarski was catalogued, shelved, and indexed before the critical date, and made available such that persons of ordinary skill in the art, exercising reasonable diligence, could have located it. Id. at 1–2. Ms. Watters, a librarian with the University of Wisconsin-Madison since 1998, provides details regarding her professional background leading to her current position as Director of Wisconsin TechSearch within the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Ex. 1038, 1. She testifies that, based on her knowledge, Uzarski “was received by Wendt Library, University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries on February 11, 1994.” Id. at 2. She further testifies that, based on the information in Uzarski, “it is clear that the microfiche was received by the library on or before February 11, 1994, catalogued and available to library patrons within a few days or at most 2 to 3 weeks after February 11, 1994.” Id. The declaration concludes with an affidavit that Ms. Watters is aware that false statements are punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Id.; see 37 C.F.R. § 1.68; 28 U.S.C. § 1746. We have reviewed the testimony of Ms. Watters supporting Uzarski’s public accessibility as of the critical date, and find that Ms. Watters provides credible testimony regarding the receipt of Uzarski by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Library and the cataloging and availability of Uzarski. On this complete record, we are persuaded that the indicia on Uzarski and the support provided by the Watters declaration demonstrate sufficiently that Uzarski was publicly accessible as of the critical date.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner and its declarant provide ample reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ Villar’s processor to use Uzarski’s method, and ample reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art also would have known to look to Haas to determine what was “well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to determine the condition of railroad ties,” and to identify and use the particular regulations referenced in Uzarski. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 58), 37–38 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 70); see also Reply 6–12; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 70–71; Ex. 1038, 18–20. On this complete record, and for the reasons provided by Petitioner and discussed above, we determine that Petitioner provides adequate reasoning to combine the three references in the manner proposed in the Petition with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 9,441,956 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,441,956 - Boston Scientific Corporation v. Uab Research FoundationInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 24, 2015 · IPR2015-00918 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–20 anticipated by KenKnight ’967, which was not prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the argument and evidence presented in the Petition shows “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). For the reasons set forth below, we do not institute an inter partes review for the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner, and we determine that the ’261 Application sets forth a device “configured for” “delivering antitachycardia pacing to said heart,” as recited by independent claims 1, 7, and 14. Petitioner has not persuaded us that the ’261 Application fails to disclose the claimed structure. Indeed, the ’261 Application discloses the same configuration of electrodes that deliver electrical impulses of the same energy and characteristics as the ’563 patent. Ex. 1002, 9:3–9, 12:30–32, Fig. 1. As noted by Patent Owner, the ’261 Application makes plain that it is directed to the treatment of “all forms of cardiac tachyarrythmias,” including “ventricular tachycardia.” See id. at 7:4–9.2” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner, and we determine that the ’261 Application sets forth a device “configured for” “delivering antitachycardia pacing to said heart,” as recited by independent claims 1, 7, and 14. Petitioner has not persuaded us that the ’261 Application fails to disclose the claimed structure. Indeed, the ’261 Application discloses the same configuration of electrodes that deliver electrical impulses of the same energy and characteristics as the ’563 patent. Ex. 1002, 9:3–9, 12:30–32, Fig. 1. As noted by Patent Owner, the ’261 Application makes plain that it is directed to the treatment of “all forms of cardiac tachyarrythmias,” including “ventricular tachycardia.” See id. at 7:4–9.2” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 6,266,563 - Headbox, LLC v. Infinite Imagineering, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 22, 2015 · IPR2014-00365 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 8–14, 16–19, 22, and 24–26 are unpatentable under § 103; claim 23 is indefinite under § 112, and its obviousness was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“headphone set in accordance with claim 1, where each of said speaker headphones includes a pair of stereo headphone driver units in order to increase the volume/audio level when said speaker headphones are not positioned on the user’s head.” Ex. 1001, 12:5–9 (emphasis added). Claim 23 additionally recites “wherein each of said headphone driver units includes a volume controlling means for regulating and presetting the volume level for said exterior speakers and said interior speakers.” Id. at 12:23–26 (emphasis added). Petitioner contends, and we agree, that “volume controlling means” is a means-plus-function claim term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, and that the claimed function is regulating and presetting the volume level for the exterior speakers and the interior speakers. Pet. 11. Petitioner also contends that the Specification does not identify any structure that corresponds to this function. Id. “If the specification does not contain an adequate disclosure of the structure that corresponds to the claimed function, the patentee will have failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of section 112, which renders the claim invalid for indefiniteness.” Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Specification teaches that one embodiment of headphone set 10 includes driver unit 70 for interior speakers 42, 44, and driver unit 72 for exterior speakers 38, 40, with driver units 70, 72 including “volume controlling means” 71 and 73, respectively. Ex. 1001, 6:40–45, Fig. 2B.7 According to the Specification, the volume controlling means are for presetting a maximum volume to each of the interior and exterior speakers, presumably to prevent hearing damage caused by excessively loud audio. Id. at 6:57–7:2. But the Specification does not describe or depict the structure that the volume controlling means uses to preset the maximum volume. Instead, it merely describes their function and depicts each of them as a box in a block diagram. Id. This is not sufficient because it does not “cabin the scope of the functional language in the means[-plus-function] element.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 518–19 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that a “black box” in a flow chart only represents a function without specifying structure). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’966 patent Specification does not describe structure corresponding to the function of presetting a maximum volume to the interior and exterior speakers, rendering claim 23 indefinite.” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteOther
“which renders the claim invalid for indefiniteness.” Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Specification teaches that one embodiment of headphone set 10 includes driver unit 70 for interior speakers 42, 44, and driver unit 72 for exterior speakers 38, 40, with driver units 70, 72 including “volume controlling means” 71 and 73, respectively. Ex. 1001, 6:40–45, Fig. 2B.7 According to the Specification, the volume controlling means are for presetting a maximum volume to each of the interior and exterior speakers, presumably to prevent hearing damage caused by excessively loud audio. Id. at 6:57–7:2. But the Specification does not describe or depict the structure that the volume controlling means uses to preset the maximum volume. Instead, it merely describes their function and depicts each of them as a box in a block diagram. Id. This is not sufficient because it does not “cabin the scope of the functional language in the means[-plus-function] element.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 518–19 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that a “black box” in a flow chart only represents a function without specifying structure). Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the ’966 patent Specification does not describe structure corresponding to the function of presetting a maximum volume to the interior and exterior speakers, rendering claim 23 indefinite.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“speaker headphone (ear covers 20) on opposing ends of a headband—each speaker headphone comprising an exterior speaker (audio speaker 25) and an interior speaker (earphone speaker 27)—and a signal wire connecting an audio device output to the speaker headphones. Ex. 1003, 2:8–20, 23–44, 53–59, 3:24–32, Figs. 1, 2. Kuo also discloses a switch that allows a user to listen to either the interior speakers or exterior speakers, although it does not describe the claimed three-way switch that also allows a user to 8 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a) (“Any material fact not specifically denied may be considered admitted.”). simultaneously listen to both interior and exterior speakers. Id. at 2:32–44, 3:27–29. We find, however, that Awaba discloses a three-way switch (mode switch 28) that permits a user to select between the three claimed listening modes. Ex. 1004, 2:5–12, 27–28, 4:30–36, Fig. 1. Further, a skilled artisan9 would have considered Awaba’s three-way switch to be an obvious substitute for Kuo’s two-way switch because both are used for essentially the same purpose: to select between a headphone’s internal and external speakers on similar speaker-equipped headphones. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the substitution because Awaba’s threeway switch adds the additional functionality of being able to play both sets of speakers at the same time.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentable
“claim 1. We find that the combination of Kuo and Awaba teaches the additional limitations recited in these claims. Specifically, Kuo discloses the input jack, amplifier member, power source, headphone shape and audio-device connection of, respectively, claims 8–10, 12, and 16. Ex. 1003, 2:21– 31, 37–39, 47–59, 3:4–32, Figs. 1, 2, 5–7. Kuo’s mounting of ear covers 20 at the joint ends 11 of headband 10 corresponds to the requirements of claim 5. Id. at 2:12–18, Fig. 2. Further, Awaba discloses the three-way switch of claims 2 and 11 and the electrical connections of claim 11 (Ex. 1004, 2:24– 28, 4:25–36, Fig. 1); Awaba’s transmission of mono signals corresponds to 9 We find that 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) (holding that the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art). the monaural system of claim 24 (id. at 4:26–29); and Awaba’s socket 24 corresponds to claim 26’s pocket (id. at 4:10–17). Adding these features to Kuo’s headphones would have constituted use of known techniques to improve similar devices (speaker-equipped headphones) in the same way. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (holding that “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”).” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 8,085,966 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,085,966 - Munchkin, Inc. / Toys “r” US, Inc. v. Luv N’ Care, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 21, 2014 · IPR2013-00072 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
The sole claim is unpatentable as obvious over Hakim ’225 and Hakim ’604; the motion to amend is denied because it would enlarge claim scope.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“The test for sufficiency of the written description, which is the same for either a design or a utility patent, has been expressed as “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. (quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). In the context of design patents, the drawings provide the written description of the invention. Thus, when an issue of priority arises under § 120 in the context of design patent prosecution, one looks to the drawings of the earlier application for disclosure of the subject matter claimed in the later application. Owens, 710 F.3d at 1366 (citations omitted).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“likelihood that the claim of the ’465 patent would have been obvious over each of Hakim ’225 and Hakim ’604. Dec. on Pet. 23. In response, Patent Owner does not argue that the claim is patentably distinct from those references. PO Resp. 6-7; Tr. 31:10-17. Rather, Patent Owner argues that the references are not prior art. PO Resp. 6-7; Tr. 31:10-17.” slip op. at 5
- ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Owner relies on this distinction, between infringement of design patents and that of utility patents, to argue that the proposed amended claim is not broader than the issued claim because, to “an ordinary observer,” the designs are “substantially the same.” PO Reply 4 (emphasis added). However, Patent Owner does not direct us to, and we are not aware of, any authority that has applied the “ordinary observer” test—first enunciated as a test for infringement in Gorham Manufacturing Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871) and adopted as the sole test for design patent infringement in Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 678—to compare the scope of two claims. The scope of the issued claim and the proposed amended claim are defined by the respective drawings. See id. at 679 (design patents typically are claimed as shown in the drawings). Those drawings differ with respect to the spout tip and the vent. Specifically, the proposed amended claim is broader than the issued claim because it is broader with respect to racetrackshaped spout tips and raised rim vents, even though it may be narrower with respect to egg-shaped spout tips and vents without raised rims. See In re Rogoff, 261 F.2d 601, 603 (CCPA 1958) (“[A] claim is broadened if it is broader in any respect than the original claim, even though it may be narrowed in other respects.”). In other words, a drinking cup, having the racetrack-shaped spout tip and raised rim vent of the proposed amended claim, could infringe the proposed amended claim based on its overall design, yet not infringe the issued claim. See Thermalloy, Inc. v. Aavid Eng’g, Inc., 121 F.3d 691, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“A new claim enlarges if it includes within its scope any subject matter that would not have infringed the original patent.”). Therefore, the proposed amended claim would enlarge the claimed subject matter in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS D617,465 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
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.