- Intel Corporation v. Acqis LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2021-01111 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding substantially the same arguments were previously presented and Petitioner did not show material Office error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. If the petitioner fails to show that the Office erred, the Director may exercise his or her discretion not to institute inter partes review. Id.; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24 (exercising discretion where “Petitioner has not pointed to error by the Examiner”). slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“For the foregoing reasons, the ’882 application identified Chu ’886 with particularity and would have directly led an ordinarily skilled artisan to 18 the document intended to be incorporated. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show that the Examiner erred in determining that the ’882 application (Chu ’330) incorporated Chu ’886 by reference. In addition, as discussed above, Petitioner admits that the ’758 application (the initial parent application) incorporated by reference the ’882 application. Pet. 25; see also Ex. 1013, 4:50−53. It also is undisputed that each subsequent application in the priority chain identified each preceding application as required by 35 U.S.C. § 120 and incorporated by reference the prior applications and the ’882 application. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:13−37, 9:66−10:2; Ex. 1008, 1:12−27, 9:27−29. As such, we also find that Petitioner has failed to show (1) the ’750 patent is not entitled to a priority date before April 15, 2011, (2) the ’436 patent’s parent applications did not properly incorporate by reference Chu ’886, and (3) the amendments adding the subject matter from Chu ’886 improperly introduced new matter. Pet. 17−31.” slip op. at 18
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,703,750 - PTAB · Oct 7, 2021 · IPR2021-00607 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 14–38 under § 325(d), finding the same or substantially the same arguments were previously presented and Petitioner failed to show material Examiner error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“[U]nder § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. If the petitioner fails 7 to show that the Office erred, the Director may exercise his or her discretion not to institute inter partes review. Id.; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24 (exercising discretion where “Petitioner has not pointed to error by the Examiner”). 1. Part I – whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Fourth, Petitioner argues that, because the subject matter added from Chu ’886 was not included in any of the applications in the ’140 patent’s priority chain before it was added by amendment in the ’138 application and then filed with the U.S. Application No. 13/294,108 (“the ’108 application”), the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’140 patent claims relying on this subject matter for written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, is the date of filing the ’108 application, November 10, 2011. Pet. 14−17. However, the amendments to the ’138 application were proper because, as discussed above, “[w]hen claims were added to the ’138 application that transformed previously non-essential material into allegedly essential material, Patent Owner submitted an amendment to explicitly set forth the material in the specification,” in accordance with the procedure set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(g) (2007) and MPEP § 608.01(p), 8th Ed. Rev. 8 (July 2010). See Prelim. Resp. 26−30. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the ’777 patent and the applications in the ’140 patent’s priority chain did not properly incorporate by reference Chu ’330 and Chu ’886, or that the examiner erred in entering the amendments that added the subject matter from Chu ’886 to the ’138 application. As such, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the earliest possible priority date for the challenged claims of the ’140 patent is November 10, 2011. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office and that Petitioner fails to show that “the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu 21 ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and are material to the patentability of the claims in the ’140 Patent.” Accordingly, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24.” slip op. at 21
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial - PTAB · Sep 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00608 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding substantially the same arguments had been presented before and Petitioner failed to show material Office error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Under § 325(d), in “determining whether to institute [an inter partes review], the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We determine whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons stated below, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’654 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“3. § 325(d) Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office and that Petitioner fails to show that the Examiner erred by not realizing that Chu ’330 and Chu ’886 qualify as 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art and are material to the patentability of the ’654 Patent claims. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review. Advanced Bionics at 8; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8, 24. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution of an inter partes review. 26 IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“Chu ’886 was not included in any of the applications in the ’654 patent priority chain before the amendments in the ’138 application, the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’654 patent claims relying on this subject matter for written description support under § 112, ¶ 1, is the filing date of the ’108 application, i.e., November 10, 2011, “the earliest possible priority date for any of the ’654 Patent claims relying on this subject matter.” Pet. 15−17. However, the amendments to the ’138 application were proper because, as discussed above, when claims were added to the ’138 application that transformed previously non-essential material into allegedly essential 25 material, Patent Owner submitted an amendment to explicitly set forth the material in the specification in accordance with the procedure set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(g) (2007) and MPEP § 608.01(p) (8th Ed. Rev. 8 July 2010). See Prelim. Resp. 28−33. Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the ’777 patent and the applications in the ’654 patent priority chain did not properly incorporate by reference Chu ’330 and Chu ’886, or that the examiner erred in entering the amendments that added the subject matter from Chu ’886 to the ’138 application. As such, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the earliest possible priority date for the challenged claims of the ’654 patent is November 10, 2011.” slip op. at 25
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial - Riot Games, Inc. v. Paltalk Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 14, 2019 · IPR2018-00132 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 7, 12, 18, 22–27, 36, 41–46, 55, and 58–63 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Aldred and RFC 1692 with Ulrich or Denzer.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“On this record, the ’686 Specification supports Petitioner’s argument that the claim term “aggregated message” or “server message,” consistent with its ordinary and plain meaning, includes a message having an aggregated payload and at least one header in addition to any additional headers that may happen to be within the aggregated payload. Here, Patent Owner’s past claim construction positions support this determination by showing, at the least, prior to this inter partes trial, how Patent Owner viewed the meaning of this claim term. See Ex. 1005, 396–97; Ex. 1006, 234–36; Ex. 1052, 108:8–24; Ex. 1054, and Ex. B, 1.13” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18; Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Relying on the declaration of Dr. White, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have to be an individual with “at least a master’s degree (or equivalent course work) in computer science, computer engineering, or physics, and at least two years of experience related to networked interactive applications,” or a person with “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or physics” who has “approximately four years’ experience in network[ing] interactive applications, or the equivalent, which would include experience in network programming.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 42–43). Patent Owner does not assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt the Petitioner’s, and Dr. White’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’686 patent and the asserted prior art, and apply it to our obviousness evaluation below. We also observe that the prior art of record reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“7. Prior Art Printed Publication Status of RFC 1692 Patent Owner does not challenge our initial determination in the Institution Decision that RFC 1692 (dated August 1994) was available to persons of ordinary skill interested in computer networking and security sufficiently to be deemed “publicly accessible” at the relevant time. See Inst. Dec. 25–30; SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Security Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. 21 Cir. 2008). For the reasons discussed in the Institution Decision, we maintain our preliminary determination that RFC 1692 qualifies as prior art printed publications.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Nevertheless, as to Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner has failed to consider “the effect of larger packets on the packet order of the CSP of Aldred if the TMux protocol is included” (PO Resp. 23), we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that “RFC 1692 discusses adding segments to a multiplexed message in the order they are received.” Pet. Reply 4 (citing 1010 ¶¶ 6–7). In particular, Petitioner argues that “RFC 1692 expressly discloses that large TCP segments can be added to the end of any pending multiplexed packet, such that all segments would be sent in the order received.” Pet. Reply 3. According to Petitioner, “RFC 1692 explains that when a segment that would not normally be multiplexed – such as a large segment – is received and a multiplexed message is under construction, ‘the extra segment can be added to the TMux message under construction, and this complete message should be sent immediately . . . .’” Id. (citing Ex. 1010, 8–9). That is, RFC 1692 discloses that “large and small TCP segments can be sent in-order by the multiplexing process.” Id. at 4 (citing Ex. 1053 ¶¶ 19–23). In its Sur-Reply, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s point and its declarant’s, Dr. White’s, testimony that the logical channels in Aldred guarantee order. See generally Sur-Reply; Reply 5; Ex.1053 ¶ 25. Rather, Patent Owner summarizes its position by, again, relying on its large packet argument. Sur-Reply 3 (arguing “smaller items would be removed from the serialization queue and added to the TMux buffer, and larger segments would be transmitted immediately”); see also id. at 3–4 (similar large packet arguments). However, in Aldred, after demultiplexing, to the extent TMux does not maintain packet order, the higher level channel logical channel layer maintains packet order. See Ex. 1009, 6 (defining a channel “by the sending application” and “with application specified transmission characteristics,” and stating “a receiving port . . . receives data packets from the channel in the order in which they were sent”). Furthermore, as Petitioner points out, by contending that combining” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 6,226,686 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,226,686 - Riot Games, Inc. v. Paltalk Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 14, 2019 · IPR2018-00131 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 7–21, 28–35, 39, 40, 47–54, 56, 57, and 64–70 are unpatentable under § 103 over Aldred and RFC 1692, with RFC 1459 for certain claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“On this record, the ’686 Specification supports Petitioner’s argument that the claim term “aggregated message” or “server message,” consistent with its ordinary and plain meaning, includes a message having an aggregated payload and at least one header in addition to any additional headers that may happen to be within the aggregated payload. Here, Patent Owner’s past claim construction positions support this determination by showing, at the least, prior to this inter partes trial, how Patent Owner viewed the meaning of this claim term. See Ex. 1005, 396–97; Ex. 1006, 234–36; Ex. 1052, 108:8–24; Ex. 1054, and Ex. B, 1.12” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18; Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Relying on the declaration of Dr. White, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least a master’s degree (or equivalent course work) in computer science, computer engineering, or physics, and at least two years’ experience related to networked interactive applications,” or “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or physics, and approximately four years’ experience in networking interactive applications, or the equivalent, which would include experience in network programming.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 42–43). Patent Owner does not assess the level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt the Petitioner’s, and Dr. White’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’686 patent and the asserted prior art, and apply it to our obviousness evaluation below. We also observe that the prior art of record reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“6. Prior Art Printed Publication Status of RFC 1459, and RFC 1692 Patent Owner does not challenge our initial determination in the Institution Decision that RFC 1692 (dated August 1994) and RFC 1459 (dated May 1993) were available to persons of ordinary skill interested in computer networking and security sufficiently to be deemed “publicly accessible” at the relevant time. See Inst. Dec. 25–30; SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. 21 Cir. 2008). For the reasons discussed in the Institution Decision, we maintain our preliminary determination that RFC 1692 and RFC 1459 qualify as prior art printed publications.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Based on the record before us, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that “Petitioner’s analysis has provided an insufficient bases for the combination of Aldred and RFC 1692.” PO Resp. 15. As an initial matter, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner “unjustifiably assumes that every embodiment of Aldred would require the use of ‘large’ TCP segments,” but “neither the challenged claims nor Aldred require ‘large’ packets,” wherein “both encompass scenarios where only small packets are generated.” Pet. Reply 7. According to Petitioner, Patent Owner’s “‘large’ packet scenario does not show nonobviousness when the claim and Aldred’s disclosure encompass systems that use only small packets.” Id. at 8 (citing Apple Inc. v VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00237, paper 41, 40 (PTAB May 11, 2015)). That is, although Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner’s alleged motivation for this combination is based on its small packet centric argument that RFC 1692 provides benefits for systems generating a number of small packets” (PO Resp. 17 (citing Pet. 33)), nothing in the challenged claims preclude a scenario in which small packets are generated. We agree with Petitioner’s contention, to which Patent Owner does not contest, that, in scenarios where only small packets are generated, “[a]n Ordinary Artisan would have understood that Aldred’s system could likewise produce small packets that would benefit from RFC 1692’s multiplexing” (Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶146)) because the Ordinary Artisan would have realized that “[a]s combined with RFC 1692, Aldred’s messages would be multiplexed via TMux (‘aggregat[ed]’) into a single packet (‘aggregated payload’) prior to transmission from the CSP to each member of the serialising channel set associated with the Sharing Set.” Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 150–151).” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 6,226,686 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,226,686 - Riot Games, Inc. v. Paltalk Holdings, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 29, 2018 · IPR2018-00129 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting review of claims 1–10, 16–18, and 31–47 based on the RFCs’ public accessibility.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“and slides) disseminated to members of even a somewhat closed group without restriction as to further dissemination may tend to indicate public accessibility of the documents, in light of other factors, even in the absence of indexing for search purposes. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, No. 2017- 1169, 2018 WL 2769092, at **8–9 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2018) (“Further, even if the Board were correct in its assumption that Medtronic only gave the Video and Slides to the SDSG members, it did not address whether the disclosures would remain confidential.”)4 On this preliminary record, Petitioner’s evidence shows sufficiently that mailing list members would have been apprised of a new RFC’s contents, at least via the Internet Society’s newsletter’s summary, if not via the mailing list (coupled with prior knowledge of the documents via group circulation thereof), with unrestricted access to the newly published RFC documents, and without any further restriction as to dissemination. See Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 18–24. In other words, prior to official publication of RFC documents, “[t]he Area Director . . . circulates the document to the wider IETF community, for comment, and” slip op. at 7
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 5,822,523 - Riot Games, Inc. v. Paltalk Holdings, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 29, 2018 · IPR2018-00130 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no abuse of discretion in instituting inter partes review of claims 1, 11–15, and 19–30 based on the RFCs’ public accessibility.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Based on the foregoing discussion, Patent Owner fails to show an overlooked or misapprehended material matter amounting to an abuse of discretion in determining Petitioner shows sufficiently that RFC 1692, RFC 1459, and RFC 791 qualify as prior art printed publications. III. CONCLUSION Patent Owner has not carried its burden of demonstrating that we misapprehended or overlooked any material matters in the Decision, and has not shown an abuse of discretion in the Decision to institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’523 patent. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Crocker’s testimony that the RFCs were available generally prior to the critical date, wherein a skilled artisan could have determined how to access particular RFCs based on mailing lists and newsletters discussing the RFCs. See Dec. 30–32. In particular, Mr. Crocker’s testimony included the (numbered accordingly), the “situation” regarding RFCs and the IETF, as summarized by the court employing, in part, evidence including a 1997 SEC (Securities Exchange Commission”) filing, would not have changed materially prior to the critical date (February, 1996) involved here. following: 1) “an official summary of published RFCs appeared in each issue of the Internet Society’s newsletter” which “was well-known to members of the Internet technical community as a source for an official summary of published RFCs” (id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1026 ¶ 24)); 2) a well-known mailing list announced RFCs to which anyone could subscribe since the late 1980s (id. (citing Ex. 1026 ¶ 21)); and 3) an RFC Editor publication “summarize[d] the status of all Internet protocol and service specifications” wherein “[t]hese RFCs are made publicly available pursuant to the standard RFC publication process” (id. (citing Ex. 1026 ¶ 23)). Mr. Crocker further testifies as follows: “Since the early 1990s, the RFC Editor repository has been freely accessible to the general public with no login, password, or membership requirement, and was similarly available to the Internet technical community since the 1970s.” Id. (citing Ex. 1026 ¶ 26).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“of our Decision (Paper 11, “Dec.”) to institute inter partes review of claims 1, 11–15, and 19–30 of (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 5,822,523 and 5,822,523 C1 (Ex. 1001, the “’523 patent”). In the Decision, we instituted a trial on the following grounds asserted by Petitioner: 1) claims 1, 15, and 19–27 of the ’523 patent for obviousness over Aldred and RFC 1692; and 2) claims 11–15, 23, and 27–30 of the ’523 patent for obviousness over Aldred, RFC 1692, and Ulrich. Dec. 49. For the reasons stated below, Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.” slip op. at 2
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 5,822,523
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.