• Captioncall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2015 · IPR2013-00540 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Rehearing

  Denied Patent Owner’s request for rehearing of the Final Written Decision, which held claims 1 and 2 unpatentable, and denied its request for an expanded panel.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “ANALYSIS A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, Patent Owner, as the party challenging the Final Decision, has the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Ryan1 did not qualify as prior art because it was not enabled (Paper 30, 15– 24 (“PO Resp.”)), we determined that Ryan was enabled prior to the date of invention of the challenged patent in 1997 and, therefore, qualified as prior art to the challenged claims. Final Dec. 18–23.” slip op. at 3

  • ExcludeDecided for petitioner

    “transcript is inadmissible because it does not satisfy the requirements that all testimony, other than uncompelled direct testimony, must be in the form of a deposition transcript, 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a), and that the witness shall be sworn, 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(1). Req. 7. Therefore, according to Patent Owner, the Yamamoto transcript was “not taken, sought, or filed in accordance with these regulations [and] is not admissible.” Id. (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.61(a)). Rule 42.53, however, is titled “Taking Testimony” and applies only to testimony taken “during a testimony period set by the Board” for purposes of a particular review proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(b); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c) (providing time limits set by the Board); id. § 42.53(d) (providing notice requirements). As stated in our Final Decision, Petitioner sought to admit the Yamamoto transcript as supplemental information, not as deposition testimony taken in this inter partes proceeding. Final Dec. 31. And based on the parties’ stipulation in district court, we treated the Yamamoto transcript as sworn deposition testimony taken in the district court. Id. at 33–35 (citing Ex. 1062 ¶ 5). Petitioner filed the Yamamoto transcript as supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b), establishing that the Yamamoto transcript reasonably could not have been obtained earlier and that its consideration was in the interests of justice. Paper 63, 7–8. Therefore, Petitioner’s filing of the Yamamoto transcript complied with Board rules, and we properly relied on it in determining the public accessibility of Yamamoto. See Final Dec. 30– 35.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Specification’s disclosure of “voice pattern.” Req. 10–11. We disagree that our reliance on the Specification’s “Brief Summary of the Invention,” which indicates “a speech recognition computer program which has been trained to the voice pattern of the call assistant,” was improper. See Final Dec. 7 (quoting Ex. 1021, 2:45-48 (emphasis added)). Rather, in our Final Decision, we contrasted the Specification’s use of “voice pattern of the call assistant” in its “Brief Summary of the Invention” with its use of “a voice recognition software package which is specifically trained to the voice of that particular call assistant” in the context of a particular embodiment of the invention shown in Figure 1. Final Dec. 7 (quoting Ex. 1021, 2:45–48, 5:45–48). Based on the evidence in the Specification (including the Specification’s disclosure of “a voice pattern”), we determined that the Specification did not indicate expressly that the voice recognition software is trained to the voice of only that particular call assistant or otherwise indicate that the voice recognition software is trained for the voice of only one call assistant. Final Dec. 7. We concluded that “we will not limit ‘trained to the voice of the call assistant’ to require training to the voice of only one particular call assistant, because the claim language encompasses the invention as disclosed in the Specification—software trained to a voice pattern of a call assistant.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:41–49 (“Summary of the Invention”)).” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,233,314
• Captioncall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2015 · IPR2013-00550 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving the finding that claim 1 was anticipated by McLaughlin unchanged.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states: The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2008), “for the proposition that anticipation can be based on combining characteristics of various distinct embodiments in a prior art reference.” Req. Reh’g 1 (citing to Final Dec. 20). Patent Owner’s argument mischaracterizes our Final Decision. We pointed to Net MoneyIn in support of our finding that McLaughlin “is describing options for a single system, not separate embodiments.” Final Dec. 20 (emphasis added). Further, Patent Owner overstates the importance of the word “embodiment”; the anticipation inquiry is whether there is “a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim,” i.e., the word “embodiment” is not itself governing. Net MoneyIn, 545 F.3d at 1359. In this case, Patent Owner has attempted repeatedly to get around McLaughlin’s anticipating disclosure by arguing that the various features are in different “embodiments,” essentially because they are under separate headings. But Patent Owner fails to address convincingly Petitioner’s assertions, backed by convincing testimony, that these features are all part of the same single prior art disclosure and arranged as claimed. In our Final Decision, we reviewed the facts and found that Petitioner had established that all of the elements of the claim were found in a single system in McLaughlin. See generally Final Dec. 15–24.” slip op. at 3

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

    “Patent Owner next alleges that we “explained that a captioned telephone device is a single device that has the features in the body of the claim.” Req. Reh’g 2. Patent Owner mischaracterizes our Final Decision; we made no such statement or implication regarding a “single device.” Our Final Decision already explains why a construction including the phrase “single device” is not commensurate with the broadest reasonable interpretation. See Final Dec. 7–9 (setting forth our construction of the “captioned telephone device”). Specifically, we pointed out that the specification of the ’082 patent instructed one of ordinary skill in the art that “the captured telephone device displays text but need not output any audio signals,” or, in other words, there was no requirement for all features of the claims to be found in one housing or a “single device.” Final Dec. 9 (citing, e.g., an example in the ’082 specification where the speaker/microphone portion (telephone) was depicted as a separate device from the text display portion); Ex. 1021, 9:20–32, Figs. 4–6.” slip op. at 4

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner

    “Written Decision “with less than a full panel.” Req. 11–13. Panel composition for an inter partes review is specified in 35 U.S.C. § 6(c), which states “[e]ach . . . inter partes review shall be heard by at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, who shall be designated by the Director.” The Director’s authority under 35 U.S.C. § 6 to designate panels has been delegated to the Chief Judge. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Standard Operating Procedure 1 (Rev. 14) (May 8, 2015) (“PTAB SOP 1”). As acknowledged by Patent Owner (Req. 11–12), the Final Decision was decided by three administrative patent judges, who are members of the Board. See 35 U.S.C. § 6(a) (indicating that administrative patent judges, along with various members of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, constitute the Patent Trial and Appeal Board). The three administrative patent judges were designated by the Chief Judge according to PTAB SOP 1, titled “Assignment of Judges to Merits Panels, Interlocutory Panels, and Expanded Panels.” The Board, therefore, complied with the statutory requirements for panel composition. Accordingly, we did not issue the Final Decision with less than a “full panel,” as Patent Owner contends.” slip op. at 5

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,003,082
• Captioncall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2015 · IPR2013-00541 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied the Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1–15 unpatentable based on the prior final written decision.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “ANALYSIS A request for rehearing must identify specifically all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Additionally, Patent Owner, as the party challenging the Final Decision, has the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Ryan1 did not qualify as prior art because it was not enabled (Paper 28, 16– 25 (“PO Resp.”)), we determined that Ryan was enabled prior to the date of invention of the challenged patent in 1997 and, therefore, qualified as prior art to the challenged claims. Final Dec. 23–28.” slip op. at 3

  • ExcludeDecided for petitioner

    “record will be treated as a sworn deposition taken in [the district court proceeding] at which both parties appeared and had the opportunity to question the witness.” Ex. 1062 ¶ 5 (Stipulation Regarding Seiichi Yamamoto). As explained in our Final Decision, we granted Petitioner’s motion to submit the Yamamoto transcript as supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b) relating to the prior art status of Yamamoto and, after supplemental briefing by the parties, determined the Yamamoto transcript was admissible. Final Dec. 36–41.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Specification’s disclosure of “voice pattern.” Req. 10–12. We disagree that our reliance on the Specification’s “Brief Summary of the Invention,” which indicates “a speech recognition computer program which has been trained to the voice pattern of the call assistant,” was improper. See Final Dec. 8–9 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:46–48 (emphasis added)). Rather, in our Final Decision, we contrasted the Specification’s use of “voice pattern of the call assistant” in its “Brief Summary of the Invention” with its use of “a voice recognition software package which is specifically trained to the voice of that particular call assistant” in the context of a particular embodiment of the invention shown in Figure 1. Final Dec. 8–9 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:46– 48, 5:44–47). Based on the evidence in the Specification (including the Specification’s disclosure of “a voice pattern”), we determined that the Specification did not indicate expressly that the voice recognition software is trained to the voice of only that particular call assistant or otherwise indicate that the voice recognition software is trained for the voice of only one call assistant. Final Dec. 9. We concluded that “we will not limit ‘trained to the voice of the call assistant’ to require training to the voice of only one particular call assistant, because the claim language encompasses the invention as disclosed in the Specification—software trained to a voice pattern of a call assistant.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:41–49 (“Summary of the Invention”)).” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,909,482
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00810 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–7 are unpatentable as anticipated by Silberschatz; Petitioner did not show claims 4 and 8 unpatentable because Silberschatz does not disclose allocating or de-allocating a specific telecommunications resource.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In this case, the ’637 patent discloses multiple embodiments of telephony and telecommunication resources being allocated and de-allocated, but during prosecution, the applicant removed the modifying limitation of “telecommunication”3 leaving only the term “resource” in the issued claims. Compare Ex. 1004, 60–69 (Application No. 09/072,436) with Ex. 1002, 44–47. The claims, thus, recite “resource” and do not recite “telecommunications resource” nor do they recite “computer resource.” The lack of a limiting term modifying “resource” indicates a scope broader than the scope encompassed by a “resource” that is limited to only a “telecommunications resource” or “computer resource.” Moreover, the Examiner characterized the claims of the application that issued as the ’637 patent as “broader in scope than the claims [in] the parent patent.” Ex. 1002, 95. The Applicant did not dispute the Examiner’s characterization of the claims. Id. at 107. Although the ’637 patent discloses embodiments using “resources,” the ’637 patent does not define explicitly the term “resource.” Therefore, we look to the ordinary meaning of the term as would be understood by one of 3 The term “telecommunication” was recited in the proposed claims of earlier-filed parent Application No. 09/072,436. The ’637 patent claims priority to patent Application No. 09/072,436. See Ex. 1002, 1. ordinary skill in the art. A technical dictionary, IEEE Dictionary4, defines “resource” as “[a]ny capability that must be scheduled, assigned, or controlled by the underlying implementation to assure non[-]conflicting usage by processes.” Id. at 976. As shown by the dictionary definition, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “resource” is not limited to a telecommunications resource or a computer resource.5 Thus, the ordinary meaning of “resource” is consistent with the term’s use in the ’637 patent, which readily interchanges the term “resources” with “components” and “capability” in the context of computer telephony resources. Ex. 1001, 1:27–29. For example, in one embodiment in the ’637 patent, the telecommunication “resource” is a telephony line card that is coupled to a telephone. Id. at 9:12–15. In other embodiments, the telecommunication “resources” are components or ports coupled via a data bus to a central processing unit system, a data port system, a video system, a network system, a storage controller, and a high speed communication system. Id. at 8:1–27, 10:64–11:10, 11:14–22. In every embodiment in the ’637 patent, 4 IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms: Seventh Edition (Standards Information Network, IEEE Press ©2000) (Ex. 3001) (hereinafter “IEEE Dictionary”). 5 Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Forys, testified on cross-examination that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have telecommunications experience because all of the embodiments in the ’637 patent are directed to telecommunications. Ex. 2002, 47:2–14. Based on this testimony, Patent Owner argues that the ’637 patent would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of a telecommunications systems. PO Resp. 8–9. We agree the ’637 patent may have been understood in the context of a telecommunications system, however, that does not indicate that a skilled artisan would have understood “resource” to have been limited to only a telecommunications resource. resources are a component or capability of a system that is managed (i.e., identified, allocated, de-allocated) by some module in the service kernel. Id. at 9:27–39, 10:10–14, 10:64–11:10, 11:14–22. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s position, because” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Forys, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’637 patent “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field and one year to two years of industry experience in telecommunications.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 32. Patent Owner does not disagree with Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of skill in the art, nor does Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Akl, offer any contrary explanation regarding who would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’637 patent. PO Resp. 9–10; Ex. 2003 ¶ 42. Based on our review of the ’637 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’637 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a similar discipline, and at least one year of work experience in telecommunications technologies. We further note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 16

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

    “We do agree with Patent Owner’s argument, however, with regards to dependent claims 4 and 8, which require the return of “the allocated telecommunications resources to control of the management module.” Ex. 1001, 21:52–22:6, 22:44–52; see supra, Section II.A.3. Petitioner has not indicated a disclosure in Silberschatz that demonstrates the allocation or de-allocation of a specific telecommunications resource. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show Silberschatz anticipates dependent claims 4 and 8.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner’s position, because Petitioner identifies CPU time as a specific resource that is requested (Pet. 23–24), allocated (id. at 25), used (id. at 25), and de-allocated (id. at 26). We credit the testimony of Dr. Forys, who explains how and where Silberschatz discloses each element of the challenged claims. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–80. Specifically, Dr. Forys testifies regarding the request, allocation, use, and de-allocation of a single type of resource (e.g., CPU time), thereby meeting the limitations of the challenged claims. Id. ¶¶ 74–80. Although Patent Owner correctly points out that Petitioner discusses multiple types of resources, we do not agree that Petitioner discusses or applies the disclosure of Silberschatz inconsistently, because Petitioner at least consistently identifies CPU time as a resource requested, allocated, used, and de-allocated.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,324,637 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,324,637
• The United States Postal Service (Usps) / The United States Of America, As Represented By The Postmaster General v. Return Mail, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2015 · CBM2014-00116 · APJ Kevin F Turner · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 39–44 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of relaying mailing address data without significantly more; anticipation by 1997 ACS was not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction We construe all terms, whether or not expressly discussed here, using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’548 Patent specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 93 F.3d 1268, 1278–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO regulation.”). During the pre-trial stage of this proceeding, the parties submitted their constructions for specific claim terms and we adopted constructions consistent with the constructions adopted by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Ex. 1011). Dec. 8–10. Return Mail does not dispute the constructions adopted. PO Resp. 16–27. Upon review of the parties’ explanations and supporting evidence before us, we discern no reason to modify our claim constructions set forth in the Decision on Institution with respect to these claim terms. Dec. 8–10. For convenience, our claim constructions are reproduced in the table below:” slip op. at 6

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionIneligibleUnpatentable

    “USPS has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 39, as a whole, is directed to the processing of returned mail items, involving decoding information, obtaining an updated address, and electronically transmitting that updated address to a transferee. USPS has shown that the steps are directed to the abstract idea of relaying mailing address data, with the inclusion of an electrical transmission step. Regarding whether claim 39 includes limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of relaying mailing address data, per our claim construction, USPS has shown that the “decoding” step is “deciphering information into useable form,” but that does not necessarily bring it out of the realm of processes performed in the past by human beings. In fact, all of the claimed steps could be performed in the human mind, with the exception of the transmitting step. Additionally, USPS has shown that what the data might be deemed to represent to the human mind — e.g., “information indicating whether the sender wants a corrected address to be provided for the intended recipient” — does not substantially affect the underlying structure or function of the claim or any machine on which it is carried out. Consistent with USPS’s position, the ’548 Patent disclosure does not describe any particular hardware to perform the steps recited in claim 39, but refers merely in broad terms to generic computer hardware and software.” slip op. at 14

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptIneligibleUnpatentable

    “significantly more than the abstract idea of relaying mailing address data, per our claim construction, USPS has shown that the “decoding” step is “deciphering information into useable form,” but that does not necessarily bring it out of the realm of processes performed in the past by human beings. In fact, all of the claimed steps could be performed in the human mind, with the exception of the transmitting step. Additionally, USPS has shown that what the data might be deemed to represent to the human mind — e.g., “information indicating whether the sender wants a corrected address to be provided for the intended recipient” — does not substantially affect the underlying structure or function of the claim or any machine on which it is carried out. Consistent with USPS’s position, the ’548 Patent disclosure does not describe any particular hardware to perform the steps recited in claim 39, but refers merely in broad terms to generic computer hardware and software.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “deciding between the proffered constructions of “[d]ecipher information into useable form” and “[c]onvert information into useable form,” the court concluded that “using the terms ‘decipher’ and ‘deciphered’ more closely follow the customary meaning of the terms and reflects the claim language. This is because decoding must operate on encoded data,” which is recognized in the term “decipher” but not in “convert.” Ex. 1011, 22–23. USPS contends that “the carrier converts into intelligible form the participant code and endorsement thereby performing the claimed ‘decoding.’” Pet. 45. However, we find no support within 1997 ACS that the carrier decodes or deciphers the participant code or endorsement because the carrier (a person) is merely reading those indicators. The indicator “ADRESS SERVICE REQUESTED” is merely read and there is no disclosure that the carrier decodes the participant code or the keyline. We disagree with Dr. Lubenow that the plain-English endorsements “meet the plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘code.’” Ex. 1028 ¶ 18. As such, we are not persuaded that the carrier in 1997 ACS acts to decode encoded data on the returned mail items.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 6,826,548 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipationcites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 6,826,548
• EMC Corporation / Rsa Security LLC v. Secure Axcess, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2015 · IPR2014-00475 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 and 25–32 are unpatentable: some are anticipated by Arent or Tygar, and the remaining claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “As an initial matter, in accordance with the plain language of the claims and because the ’191 patent does not provide any special meaning for the term “received data,” we construe “received data” to mean “data that has been received.” The term “received data” implies data has been received but does not itself require the data to be received at a particular time, in a particular manner, by a particular device (such as an authentication host computer), or from a particular device (such as a device other than an authentication host computer). None of independent claims 1, 31, or 32 expressly recites from where the received data is sent, much less recite expressly that the data is sent from a device other than the authentication host computer. Of independent claims 1, 31, and 32, only independent claim 32 expressly requires a particular device—“an authentication host computer”—to receive data. Independent claims 1 and 31 require acting on received data in a certain manner—to transform (claim 1), or format (claim 31), received data in a certain manner to create formatted data. Thus, none of claims 1, 31, or 32 expressly requires an authentication host computer to receive data from a device other than the authentication host computer, as Patent Owner contends.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that none of the claims requires the authenticity key to locate the preferences file or have the ability to determine the location of a preferences file. First, none of the independent claims recites the authenticity key being used to locate the preferences file.10 Nor is there evidence of written description support for such an interpretation— the ’191 patent does not disclose using an authenticity key to locate the preferences file. Rather, as noted previously, the ’191 patent discloses in a preferred embodiment that a preferences key, which is different than an authenticity key, is used to locate the preferences file. See Ex. 1001, 4:38– 40. This understanding is confirmed by Patent Owner’s declarant Dr. Katz. See Ex. 1034, 164:20–165:5. Further, Dr. Katz acknowledges the 9 To the extent that Patent Owner argues Dr. Tygar’s testimony concerning a particular embodiment disclosed in the ’191 patent acknowledges Patent Owner’s proposed construction here is correct (Paper 23, 2–4), we disagree. Dr. Tygar did not provide testimony about the meaning of the claims, only what a particular embodiment in the ’191 patent described. See Paper 27, 1– 3. 10 Claim 1 recites “returning. . . the formatted data to enable the authenticity key to be retrieved from the formatted data and to locate a preferences file”; independent claim 29 recites “the authenticity key enables location of a preferences file”; independent claims 31 and 32 require retrieving the authenticity key to locate a preferences file. Independent claim 17 does not recite the location of a preferences file. 19 authenticity key does not have information to locate the preferences file. See, e.g., Ex. 1034, 165:6–9. Petitioner’s proposed construction of independent claims 1, 17, 29, 31, and 32 as only requiring some action as a precondition to locating the preferences file better comports with the claims and written description of the ’191 patent. For example, the ’191 patent discloses that after verification of a received digital signature, the preferences key is requested and subsequently used to determine the location of the preferences file. See Ex. 1001, 4:22–40 (referring to Fig. 5). The verification of the received digital signature must occur before the preferences key can be requested and used to determine the location of the preferences file. In other words, verification of the received digital signature is a precondition of requesting and using the preferences key to determine the location of the preferences file. Thus, verification of the received digital signature enables—supplies the opportunity for11—the requested preferences key. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction that the” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The parties propose similar levels of ordinary skill in the art and do not directly challenge the other’s proposal. Ex. 1002 ¶ 12 (testimony by Petitioner’s declarant); Ex. 2007 ¶ 8 (testimony by Patent Owner’s declarant). The parties’ declarants differ in the amount of work experience one with ordinary skill in the art with a bachelor’s degree would have. Patent Owner’s declarant opines two years of work experience would be sufficient, whereas Petitioner’s declarant opines five years of work experience would be necessary for one of ordinary skill in the art with a bachelor’s degree. Id. Despite these initial differences, Petitioner later acknowledged that record evidence supports a level of ordinary skill having two years of work experience. Hearing Tr. 32:1–16; see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record). We adopt the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer 23 science (or an equivalent field) and least two years of work experience in the area of information technology.” slip op. at 23

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Weighing the testimony of the declarants, as discussed above, we credit Dr. Tygar’s testimony over Dr. Katz’s testimony that Arent discloses sending the digital signature separately from the message. See, e.g., Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding the Board has discretion to give more weight to one item of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech 31 Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1368 (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). First, Dr. Katz does not address sufficiently the Petitioner’s position regarding the signed web offer being the formatted data recited in claims 1, 31, and 32. Rather, Dr. Katz focuses his testimony on Arent’s technology for authentication of a merchant, whereas Petitioner relies on Arent’s authentication of the offer. Compare Pet. 29–32, Reply 3–4 with Ex. 1034 153:10–154:21, 159:17–160:19; see also Ex. 1035 ¶ 52 (Dr. Tygar confirming Dr. Katz based his understanding on Arent’s discussion of the authentication of a merchant). Second, Dr. Tygar directly counters Dr. Katz’s testimony. Dr. Tygar testifies that “[c]onventional digital signature techniques would not have sent the message and signature separately, especially in the context of signing web pages.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 53 (explaining how “an elaborate system would be needed to correlate specific instances of web pages for specific user/browser combinations and specific moments in time and the corresponding digital signatures” if digital signatures were sent separately from messages/web pages).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 7,631,191 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,631,191
• PNC Bank, N.A. / U.S. Bank, N. A. et al. v. Secure Axcess, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2015 · CBM2015-00009 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–32 are unpatentable as obvious over the SHTTP document and Arent.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter recited in claims 1–32 of the ’191 patent as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of the SHTTP document and Arent. See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).” slip op. at 71

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedNot reached

    “Information Prepared by Paul C. Clark” (Ex. 1018). Petitioner opposes, arguing that Exhibit 1018 is Dr. Clark’s notes used during his deposition. We did not refer to or rely on Exhibit 1018 in this Final Written Decision. As such, we need not reach the merits as to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude certain evidence (Ex. 1018) is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 71

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner’s expert adopted the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention used by Patent Owner’s expert. See Ex. 2006 ¶ 8 (testimony by Patent Owner’s declarant identifying the level of ordinary skill); Ex. 1002 ¶ 29 (testimony by Petitioner’s declarant). We do not 31 disagree with the parties. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent field and least two years of work experience in the area of information technology.” slip op. at 31

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner and its declarant that the provisional application does not disclose the claimed authenticity key or preferences file or the claimed use thereof, as recited in each of independent claims 1, 17, 29, 31, and 32. The provisional application describes the invention in a few sentences. The scarcity of detail fails to provide sufficient disclosure of the claimed steps. For example, we see no disclosure of inserting any data in the provisional application, much less inserting something that could be identified as an authenticity key. Although a shared secret is disclosed, the shared secret is not described as being inserted into the web page or any other data. See id. at 5–6 (“The invention proposes to utilize the shared secret data created as part of being” a credit card holder of a particular credit 33 card company.). Moreover, the record evidence indicates that the provisional application does not disclose the recited “authenticity key.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 at 18, ¶ 37). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the provisional application lacks written description support for “authenticity key,” which is recited by all claims in the ’191 patent. Accordingly, we determine Arent is prior art under 102(a) to the ’191 patent and is available for consideration in this covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,631,191 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,631,191
• PNC Bank, N.A. / U.S. Bank, N. A. et al. v. Secure Axcess, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2015 · CBM2014-00100 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–32 are unpatentable as obvious over SHTTP and Arent; the Board found the combined teachings and reason to combine established by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s expert adopted the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention used by Patent Owner’s expert. See Ex. 2006 ¶ 8 (testimony by Patent Owner’s declarant identifying the level of ordinary skill); Ex. 1002 ¶ 29 (testimony by Petitioner’s declarant). We do not 31 disagree with the parties. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent field and least two years of work experience in the area of information technology.” slip op. at 31

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner and its declarant that the provisional application does not disclose the claimed authenticity key or preferences file or the claimed use thereof, as recited in each of independent claims 1, 17, 29, 31, and 32. The provisional application describes the invention in a few sentences. The scarcity of detail fails to provide sufficient disclosure of the claimed steps. For example, we see no disclosure of inserting any data in the provisional application, much less inserting something that could be identified as an authenticity key. Although a shared secret is disclosed, the shared secret is not described as being inserted into the web page or any other data. See id. at 5–6 (“The invention proposes to utilize the shared secret data created as part of being” a credit card holder of a particular credit 33 card company.). Moreover, the record evidence indicates that the provisional application does not disclose the recited “authenticity key.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 at 18, ¶ 37). Thus, we agree with Petitioner that the provisional application lacks written description support for “authenticity key,” which is recited by all claims in the ’191 patent. Accordingly, we determine Arent is prior art under 102(a) to the ’191 patent and is available for consideration in this covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 33

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “10. Conclusion Regarding Obviousness We have resolved the question of obviousness based on factual determinations of (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the subject matter of challenged claims and the teachings of the prior art; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Patent Owner did not put forth any objective evidence of nonobviousness. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter recited in claims 1–32 of the ’191 patent as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of the SHTTP document and Arent. See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).” slip op. at 71

  Patent outcomesUS 7,631,191 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,631,191
• Oracle Corporation v. Thought, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 23, 2015 · IPR2014-00117 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as anticipated by Franklin; claim 2 is also unpatentable over Franklin and JVM; claims 6–7 are unpatentable over Franklin and Chang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “have understood the recited phrase “any other” to mean that the reliable messaging service of claim 1 is a reliable messaging service with capabilities similar to those of the Java Messaging Service (“JMS”). Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 83). In support of its position, Patent Owner relies upon the testimony of Sam Malek, Ph.D. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 80–85. Dr. Malek provides a detailed description of JMS (id. ¶¶ 39–47), however, he does not provide a sufficient factual basis for his assertion that “any other” would be limited to services similar to JMS. During his deposition, Dr. Malek testified that JMS was an example of a messaging service and that there were other messaging services beyond JMS. Ex. 1016, 48:19–24. He, however, asserts that because the ’912 Patent mentions JMS, that in itself is an indication that the claims are directed to a particular form of messaging performed by JMS. Id. at 50:19–51:7. We note, however, that the ’912 Patent does not limit the messaging service to JMS; instead it lists JMS as an example of a messaging service that could be used. Ex. 1001, 5:57–60 (“caching system that utilizes a messaging system such as the Java Messaging Service (JMS)”), 16:28–30 (“the Java Messaging Service (JMS) or to any other reliable messaging service”), 16:46–49 (“JMS . . . or other reliable messaging service), 41:22– 25 (“JMS (or similar) notification caching system”). At most, there is one passing reference in the specification to the messaging system being “similar” to JMS, but the specification does not describe in what way the messaging system should be similar to JMS, nor does it state how similar the messaging system should be to JMS. Thus, we find that the ’912 Patent does not require JMS or any specific features of JMS. Therefore, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “any other” as recited in claim 1 of the ’912 Patent does not limit the claimed messaging service to those similar to JMS. As to the phrase “available in the object programming language system environment,” Patent Owner argues that this should mean that the recited messaging service has an interface for object oriented programs to use the messaging service. PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 83). In support of its position, Patent Owner cites Dr. Malek’s testimony. Dr. Malek, however, provides no analysis or factual support for that assertion outside of a discussion of JMS’s program language system environment. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 82–83. We determine that this term is not limited to the environment of the JMS. Therefore, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “available in the object programming language system environment” is not limited to having an interface for object oriented programs to use the messaging service. We are not persuaded that express construction is necessary for the terms “any other” and “available in the object programming language system environment.” In addition, after reviewing the evidence of record, we determine that our preliminary construction of “reliable messaging service” to be “a messaging service that sends messages that will be received according to guarantees made by the service” is the broadest reasonable construction of the term and, as such, we do not modify our preliminary construction.” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency foundUnpatentable

    “Ex. 1014 ¶ 9.2.1.1.3.4. We find Dr. Hosking’s testimony to be well reasoned. “‘[A]nticipation by inherent disclosure is appropriate only when the reference discloses prior art that must necessarily include the unstated limitation.’” Rexnord Indus., LLC v. Kappos, 705 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 483 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). According to our construction of reliable messaging service, such a service makes guarantees regarding the receipt of messages. Therefore, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand an unreliable messaging service to be one that makes no such guarantees. It follows that if an unreliable messaging service is used, then there is no guarantee that invalidation messages would be received. The stated purpose of the algorithms described in Franklin is “to ensure that such caching does not result in the violation of transaction semantics.” Ex. 1005, 1. Franklin goes on to note that “care must be taken to ensure that the presence of multiple copies [of data] in the distributed system does not jeopardize the correctness of programs.” Id. at 2. The absences of guarantees regarding the receipt of invalidation messages would render the disclosed algorithms ineffective for their stated purpose because one cannot ensure that messages are received if an unreliable messaging system is used. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would read Franklin’s disclosure to require a reliable messaging service.” slip op. at 16

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

    “in element (c) of claim 1. PO Resp. 25–33. We note, however, that “as a general rule the claim is not limited to performance of the steps in the order recited, unless the claim explicitly or implicitly requires a specific order.” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). This is particularly true here because claim 1 recites a computer system and not a method. According to Patent Owner, the inclusion of the term “when” means that the invalidation message cannot be sent to the clients before the update is persisted in the data source. PO Resp. 29. Patent Owner urges that the term “when” has an ordinary and customary meaning of “at or during which time.” Id. at 29 n.5 (quoting Ex. 2003, 1424). We do not agree with Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation. Franklin discloses the sending of invalidation messages and the commitment to the database to be contemporaneous activities. Ex. 1005, 23–24. Franklin describes that in the O2PL algorithms a “transaction enters its commit phase” then it sends invalidation messages to the server and the client regarding the data to be updated, and then the data is updated in accordance with the algorithm. Id. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the sending of invalidation messages to be part of the “commit phase.” As such, the sending of invalidation messages would occur “when” the update is being committed. Therefore, we determine that this disclosure meets the limitations of element (c) of claim 1.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “reasoning to combine JVM and Franklin. PO Resp. 38. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s assertion. We, instead, are persuaded that the Java Virtual Machine was well-known, and that the implementation of a caching system, such as the one described by Franklin, in the Java Virtual Machine environment would have been within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill, and that such modification would have been motivated by the knowledge of one of ordinary skill. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is . . . necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.”). Therefore, we are not persuaded of improper hindsight reasoning. After considering the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Franklin and JVM would have rendered obvious claim 2.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,985,912 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,985,912
• American Express Company / American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. et al. v. Metasearch Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2015 · CBM2014-00001 · APJ Howard B Blankenship · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 6, and 8 are unpatentable under §§ 101 and 103(a); Patent Owner’s motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “In this case, representative claim 2 recites eight steps for a search that is “associated with at least one travel related item,” and which include receiving the search results, communicating the results along with an advertisement, receiving an order for the item, and processing the order. See Ex. 1001, col. 145, ll. 33–61. Although the claimed process requires computer hardware and software (e.g., step (a) of claim 2, “receiving a Hypertext Transfer Protocol request from a client device”), we agree with Petitioner that the claim embraces 5 The Court’s decision is sometimes referenced as Ultramercial III. The Federal Circuit heard the second appeal from the U.S. District Court after the Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s first decision. 772 F.3d at 711–12. the abstract idea of marketing an item on a metasearch Web site with keyword ads and providing a way to order the item.” slip op. at 13

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptIneligibleUnpatentable

    “Next, or in step two of the analysis, we search for an “inventive concept”— i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. In this case, the claims recite, for the most part, an ordered combination of steps that contain Internet operations that were conventional at the time of invention. For example, the claims recite communicating with a client device using a Hypertext Transfer Protocol [HTTP]. Momma.com demonstrates that browsers on Internet client devices used such a protocol at the time of invention. See Ex. 1005, 10 (for “Microsoft Internet Explorer,” go to the address “http://www.mamma.com”). The claims further recite a “metasearch engine,” which also was conventional at the time of invention. See id. at 5 (“Mamma is a meta search engine”); see also Prelim. Resp. 3 (Patent Owner did not claim that “metasearching” was novel at the time of invention). Patent Owner argues that designing more than a “rudimentary” metasearch engine in the late 1990’s was not a trivial task. PO Resp. 44. The argument is premised on the assumption that the claims require more than “rudimentary” metasearching. The claims recite, however, as in claim 2, a “metasearch engine to send at least one search query to a plurality of unique hosts”—e.g., a metasearch engine capable of sending a single search query to a plurality (e.g., two) different hosts. The claims are drawn to implementing the abstract idea of marketing an item on a metasearch Web site with keyword ads and some way to order the item with routine, conventional activity. Such an implementation does not transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “5. Combining Knowledge Broker and Mamma.com Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the “disparate technologies” of Mamma.com and Knowledge Broker and would not have known how to do so “without complex, lengthy, and uncertain experimentation.” PO Resp. 62. According to Patent Owner, the “two technologies” of “metasearch engines and structured e-commerce comparison shopping services providing product purchase functionality and associated advertisements—were vastly different technologies during the late 1990s and in particular in 1999-2000.” Id. at 59. A person of ordinary skill in the art would “not have been motivated to combine metasearch engines with structured e-commerce comparison shopping sites due to numerous other technical challenges present at the time.” Id. at 63. We agree with Petitioner, however, that the claims do not require addressing the “technical challenges” submitted by Patent Owner. Pet. Reply 11–12. Adding advertisements to Knowledge Broker would not require combining a metasearch engine with other “technologies” such as “structured ecommerce comparison shopping sites.” For example, the advertisements could be supplied from the hosts. Patent Owner acknowledges there is no limitation as to where the advertisement comes from. Tr. 61:20–25.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersNot shown unpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “The Declaration does not point to any evidence in the record in support of the allegations. Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Moreover, Dr. Carbonell does not allege, let alone show, that others tried and failed to solve the problem allegedly solved by the ’924 patent. See Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]ong-felt need is analyzed as of the date of an articulated identified problem and evidence of efforts to solve that problem.”); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (declarations that failed to show a long-felt need and failure of others to meet that need, and which offered only opinion evidence that has little value without sufficient support, were insufficient to establish nonobviousness). Further, on this record, the “desirability of combined search and shopping functionality” (Ex. 2006 ¶ 40) was not unmet at the time of invention. Patent Owner acknowledges that e-commerce services that allowed a user to query structured databases predated the invention. E.g., PO Reply 8–9, 12, 62 (discussing “SoftBot” and “ShopBot” e-commerce services). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Patent Owner’s evidence in support of a long-felt but unmet need is entitled to little weight in support of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,326,924 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,326,924

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.