- Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00652 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 and 25–30 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’403 patent and the asserted prior 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). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 73); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses element [1.2] because the evidence cited does not disclose a “first computer system being configured to provide remote control of the first pump or first valve” (i.e., a fluid-handling device). Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but Petitioner has not identified any disclosure of the capability to remotely control fluid-handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, Kahn’s disclosures that Petitioner relies on for allegedly teaching remote control are deficient. We discuss each. First, Petitioner points to the following, “[f]or instance, as illustrated in FIG. 1C, a fluid control device such as a valve 15A is located on the input side of a sen[s]or unit 110.” Ex. 1005, 8:19–21, cited in Pet. 13. This portion of Kahn, however, does not disclose remote control. Second, Petitioner cites to the following: Finally, or in addition to, the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:62–67). We agree with Patent Owner that this portion of Kahn teaches on-site alerts and local control of the fluid-handling device. See Prelim. Resp. 7. This portion of Kahn does not disclose remote control.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,294,403 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00651 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, 7, and 9–20 were unpatentable over any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 patent and the asserted prior 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). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“target value” is part of a command that is sent from a computing device to a server and then to a controller. The controller then receives a measurement of the fluid by a sensor and determines whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” If the measurement does not satisfy the “target value,” further operations are undertaken. The recited operation sequence makes clear that the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” is not as Dr. Wooley opines because the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time is represented by the measurement taken by the sensor, 11 Some claim language less relevant to construing “target value” was omitted for ease of reference. which the controller then uses to determine whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” Additionally, claim 1 recites that the “target value” is sent as part of a command to the controller. The “target value” is not sent to the controller from the sensor, as might be expected if the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” were as Dr. Wooley opines. Petitioner and Dr. Wooley’s construction would also result in “target value” meaning effectively the same thing as the measurement of the fluid by the sensor, a concept that is separately recited in claim 1 and to which the “target value” is compared. The Specification of the ’680 patent does not support Petitioner’s understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value.” Although the Specification does not recite “target value,” it recites “target state,” and describes “target state” sufficiently to understand the plain and ordinary meaning of “target” as used in “target value” and “target state.” In particular, the ’680 patent explains that “[i]n some embodiments, the process 104 includes receiving, via a network interface, from a remote user device, (e.g., via a command-center server) a command to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state.” Ex. 1001, 11:48–51. This portion reflects that the command is seeking to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state. In other words, the “target value” or “target state” is not generally “the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time”; rather, it is a value or state that the fluid-handling device is desired to be in, as Patent Owner and Dr. Durham explain. Additionally, just as claim 1 recites a directional component for the “target value” to be sent to the controller in a command, so too does the Specification describe a “target state” as being sent in a command from a remote user device. Thus, the Specification clearly supports the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Patent Owner and Dr. Durham and not the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Wooley. slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“time-stamped process data, report exception therein to the remote host, and extract and transmit time-stamped process data to the remote host.” Ex. 1005, Abst. (emphases added). Almadi explains that its remote field systems must include a plurality of controller units “to issue commands to, and gather and process data from a plurality of field devices, including remote systems and instruments, . . . [and] a database server for the storage of process data retrieved from the remote subsystems and instruments.” Id. at 2:22–30 (emphases added). Based on these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established that Almadi discloses element [1.4]. Specifically, the teachings from Almadi identified by Petitioner refer to process data, which is data retrieved from the remote subsystems/field devices. Thus, we understand that Almadi’s teaching—of using an Ethernet switch to transmit “process data”—describes transmitting data from the remote subsystems/field devices. See Ex. 1005, 3:13–17, cited in Pet. 15. But claim 1 and particularly element [1.4], recites “sending, with the server, the target value to the network address [which identifies a controller of the fluid-handling device13] via the network,” which is different than sending process data from the field devices to the remote host or database server for storage.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,175,680 - PTAB · May 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00085 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–11, 13, and 15 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to institute an inter partes review if “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). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, the Preliminary Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims of the ’659 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the Challenged Claims on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“We disagree with Patent Owner. Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation.”8 The Director’s Memorandum explains that, when a petitioner makes a Sotera-type stipulation, “it mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB” and “[w]ith such a stipulation, if an IPR or PGR is instituted, the grounds the PTAB resolves will differ from those present in 8 https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretio nary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf (“Director’s Memorandum”). the parallel district court litigation.” Director’s Memorandum 7 (citing Sotera, IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19). Pursuant to the Director’s Memorandum, we “will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Id. Because Petitioner provides a Sotera-type stipulation, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision as it appears consistent with 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 ordinary skill in the art). Petitioner’s proposed definition appears overly restrictive, as it requires a graduate degree in a narrow field of engineering or equivalent experience. We find that a bachelor’s degree with the accompanying experience proposed by Patent Owner more closely aligns with the prior art of record and the ’659 patent. We note, however, there is some overlap in the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art because Patent Owner’s proposal includes “at least” a bachelor’s degree, which would encompass Petitioner’s master’s degree as well. Prelim. Resp. 19. Nonetheless, our determination herein would be the same under either party’s definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s claim construction. By using the word “or,” the plain and ordinary meaning of “prone, kneeling, or standing” is that only one must be satisfied to meet the claim. See, e.g., SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The disjunctive ‘or’ plainly designates that a series describes alternatives.”). Furthermore, and although claims are read in light of the specification, limitations in a specification are not read into a claim. In re van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Even if the Specification describes embodiments in which the user can begin in a prone position and then transition to a kneeling or standing position, as Patent Owner points out (see Prelim. Resp. 20), the claim does not recite the term “transitioning,” and we do not read the terms “each of” or “substantially flat surface” into this claim limitation. For example, the claim does not recite a “substantially flat” top surface and Patent Owner’s attempt to infer this structure into the claim is not supported under the law. See id. at 29–30. For purposes of this Decision, we agree with Petitioner and construe “prone, kneeling, or standing” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning as alternatives, and the prior art need only show one to satisfy this aspect of the claim.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,586,659 - PTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00114 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would have been obvious over DiPerna964 and Strack.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“We determine below that Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial. Thus, we do not reach the issue of whether the merits are compelling. CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022- 01242, Paper 23 at 4–5 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (Board must first address Fintiv factors 1–5, and should engage the compelling merits question only if that analysis favors discretionary denial) (“CommScope”). 7. Balancing the Fintiv Factors Weighing against exercising our discretion to deny institution is factor 3 involving the parties’ limited investment and lack of substantive orders in the District Court litigation. Factor 4 concerning the limited overlap of the issues in the two cases also weighs against discretionary denial. Only factor 5, that Petitioner and the defendant in the District Court litigation are the same party, weighs in favor of discretionary denial. Factor 1 concerning the absence of a stay in the District Court litigation, and factor 2 concerning the close proximity between the start of trial in the District Court litigation and the estimated deadline for the final written decision, are neutral on the facts of this case. We therefore determine that the balance of factors 1–5 weighs against discretionary denial. Accordingly, we do not consider the issue of whether compelling merits have been shown under factor 6. See CommScope, Paper 23 at 4–5.2” slip op. at 13
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1006, 23) (emphasis added). From this passage, we understand the “safety” switch to be “separate” from the panic button, not a part of it. This understanding is reinforced by claim 7 which depends from claim 1 and recites that the mobile device “further compris[es] a safety switch,” meaning it is a separate element from the panic button. Ex. 1001, 9:3–4. Thus, moving the safety switch into position readies the panic button, which is not the same as the panic button readying itself to perform functions in claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent. Patent Owner does not sufficiently address this issue in its assertions. See Prelim. Resp. 5–7. Patent Owner’s reliance on disclosures elsewhere in the ’404 patent is likewise not persuasive. Prelim. Resp. 5–6. For example, the ’353 application mentions “ready” in relation to using a self-defense mechanism such as pepper spray, which has not been shown to be related to the panic button. Ex. 1006, 5, 9–10. Although Patent Owner relies on the ’353 application’s description of voice activation using a codeword, voice activation does not ready the panic button for activation to perform functions, but actually activates the panic button to perform those functions. Prelim. Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 1006, 17). Petitioner thus met its burden here to demonstrate that claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent lack written description support for a panic button adapted to “ready itself” to perform the recited functions because the limitation is not present in the ’353 application to which the ’404 patent claims priority. Pet. 8–10. The burden of production thus shifted to Patent Owner to demonstrate that the ’353 application has written description support for this limitation, which it has not done on this record. Prelim. Resp. 5–7.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“of the proceeding, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that at least one of claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the ground set forth in the Petition. Accordingly, we institute trial for all challenged claims on all grounds asserted by Petitioner. See SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). Our factual findings, conclusions of law, and determinations at this stage of the proceeding are preliminary, and based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims or to the construction of any claim term. V. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review of claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent is hereby instituted on all challenges to patentability set forth in the Petition; and” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a POSITA would have combined DiPerna964 and Strack with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 16–18. DiPerna964 and Strack are directed to similar mobile devices for use in security and emergency situations. Id. at 16–17. Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently that a POSITA would have regarded Strack’s arming and timer technique as an improvement that would have been useful with DiPerna964’s mobile device (at least in some circumstances) to provide the user with additional time to evaluate whether triggering the 911 call is warranted. Id. at 17–18. This amounts to the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, which is a recognized rationale for combining prior art references. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401, 417 (2007). Accordingly, on this record, Petitioner has presented a reasonable likelihood that a POSITA would have combined DiPerna964 and Strack with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 16–18.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,265,404 - Zebra Technologies Corporation v. Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2022-01377 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 10–12, and 14–22 are unpatentable: claims 1–8, 12, and 14–22 as anticipated by Garber; claims 10 and 11 as obvious over Garber and Andersen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“3. The Alleged Anticipation of Claim 1 a. A portable interrogator, comprising: Petitioner contends that the preamble is not limiting, but, to the extent that it is, Garber discloses a portable interrogator. Pet. 12–13 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1005, 14:59–62, 15:63–65). Petitioner asserts that Garber discloses a portable interrogator in the form of a hand-held RFID device, and points to, inter alia, Garber’s description of Figure 4 as depicting “a block diagram of an RFID interrogation system interacting with an RFID tag.” Id. at 12 (quoting Ex. 1005, 3:46–47) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not raise any arguments regarding this contention. b. an antenna configured to receive a first signal from a first object; Petitioner contends that Garber discloses a hand-held RFID device having an antenna for the RFID reader. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1005, 15:43– 46, 16:11–13, Fig. 13; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 75–78). Petitioner further contends that Garber’s Figure 13 depicts the antenna receiving an RFID signal from a tag attached to a library book. Id. at 13. Petitioner additionally contends that Garber discloses the identification, by the RFID device, of multiple items via code signals 202, thus disclosing an antenna configured to receive a first signal from a first object. Id. at 14. Petitioner notes that Garber states, “[t]he hand-held RFID device . . . is capable of identifying multiple items that are within the range of the device.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 14:40–45) (emphasis and alterations in original). Petitioner further asserts that “Garber also teaches that ‘if items used in the library are first placed on a book cart [in close proximity without obstructions], for example, the hand-held device could make a single pass by the items on the cart to record them.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, 18:25–27) (emphasis and alterations in original). Patent Owner does not raise any arguments regarding these contentions. c. a control and processing subsystem configured to discern a presence of said first object from said first signal; and Petitioner contends that: Garber discloses a control and processing subsystem (e.g., the processor in the hand-held RFID device/computer 108) configured to discern a presence of (e.g., decoding response from tags to identify tagged item) said first object (e.g., the RFID tags) from said first signal (e.g., signals produced by tags/response code signal 202). Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 79–84); see also id. at 14–17. Patent Owner does not raise any arguments regarding this contention.” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“4. Motivation to Combine Garber and Andersen Relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen for several reasons. Pet. 49, 52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 187–196). First, Petitioner argues that Garber and Andersen are analogous art to the ’293 patent “because they are in the same field of endeavor—namely, interrogation systems.” Id. at 49. Specifically, Petitioner argues that Garber and Andersen are analogous to the ’293 patent “because they are reasonably pertinent to the technical problem allegedly addressed by the claimed invention.” Id. Petitioner contends that “[t]he ’293 Patent identifies deficiencies in the prior art as including [inter alia] a requirement ‘that each device be interrogated separately’ (versus ‘[t]he ability to interrogate a plurality of closely spaced tags simultaneously’).” Id. at 49–50 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:16–25, 5:56–6:15, 6:40–46) (third alteration in original). According to Petitioner, Garber discloses, among other things, that “‘[a]nother benefit’ of the RFID device as ‘the ability to process multiple items at one time’ where ‘conventional devices having only optical bar code scanners can process only a single item . . . at one time.’” Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 1005, 13:25–30, 13:30–36 (“greatly reduc[ing] the time required for library staff to process multiple items.”)) (alterations in original). Petitioner argues that “Andersen is also analogous because it teaches ‘a system for tracking inventory having RFID components” and is designed to remedy the deficiencies of prior art inventory tracking systems using bar codes, which can be torn, destroyed, or hidden from view. Id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:8–10, 1:58–2:2, 2:4–5). Additionally, according to Petitioner, Andersen is intended to address multipath errors and teaches that one way to refine radio signals received by RFID tags is by using a Kalman filter. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36). Petitioner also argus that Andersen “provides ample motivation to add a Kalman filter to Garber’s hand-held device” to provide “correction of multi scanned signal / multipath errors.” Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36, 12:39–41). “As such,” Petitioner asserts, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious “to modify Garber’s handheld device, which is used inside a library where shelves and other obstacles can result in multipath errors, to use Andersen’s Kalman filter to address these errors.” Id. Additionally, according to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill “could have combined Andersen’s Kalman Filter with Garber’s hand-held device using known methods, and such a filter would merely perform the same function—resolving errors to improve detection accuracy, which is entirely predictable.” Id. at 51–52. Finally, Petitioner contends, one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because “[t]he interrogator components described in Garber and Andersen were well-known at the time,” and the modification of Garber’s interrogator to include Andersen’s Kalman filter would have been straightforward for a person of ordinary skill. Id. at 52. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s motivation to combine Garber and Andersen is insufficient. PO Resp. 29–32; PO Sur-reply 23. First, Patent Owner argues that the combination is based on impermissible hindsight because Petitioner did not explain why one of ordinary skill would have combined Garber and Andersen “to teach a control and processing unit employing an adaptive integrated filter or multiscan, coherent signal processing.” PO Resp. 31. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen because “Andersen teaches the use of filters to correct multipath signal errors arising from the transmission of a single signal,” while the ’293 patent “teaches the use of filters to process multiple diverse inputs with a signal representing an RFID object to discern the presence of that object and teaches multiscan, coherent signal processing to coordinate the processing of a plurality of signals.” Id. “In either case,” Patent Owner contends, “the problems solved by the ’293 Patent involve multiple signals and not the single signal problem addressed by Andersen.” Id.” slip op. at 68
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“5. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness Patent Owner asserts that there is evidence of long felt but unresolved need that constitutes objective indicia of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 32–33; see PO Sur-reply 24 (“others in the field had attempted and failed to solve the problems addressed by the ‘293 Patent”). Patent Owner also makes certain assertions regarding the adoption and possible acquisition of its technology. PO Resp. 34; see also PO Sur-reply 24 (referring to “industry acceptance of Lone Star’s inventions”). Petitioner characterizes these latter assertions as allegations of industry praise and commercial success. Pet. Reply 24. In support of its objective indicia arguments, Patent Owner relies solely on the declaration of named-inventor John Volpi (Ex. 2018). See PO Resp. 32. Petitioner argues that there is no nexus to the claimed invention because Patent Owner “has not identified the merits of the claimed invention or any product that embodies the claimed features or is coextensive with them.” Pet. Reply 23–24. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner “has not established industry praise or commercial success, let alone a nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” Id. at 24. As the Federal Circuit has explained: For objective evidence of secondary considerations to be relevant, there must be a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the objective evidence. See In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). A showing of nexus can be made in two ways: (1) via a presumption of nexus, or (2) via a showing that the evidence is a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention. A patent owner is entitled to a presumption of nexus when it shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product that “embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000). . . . However, even absent a presumption of nexus, “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373–74 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).” slip op. at 72
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied
“exhibits for use at oral argument. Paper 31 (Petitioner’s objections); Paper 33 (Patent Owner’s objections). Petitioner contends that certain of Patent Owner’s demonstrative exhibit slides contain new argument not previously made in any paper and evidence not previously asserted or relied on in any paper. See Paper 31. Patent Owner similarly contends that certain of Petitioner’s demonstrative exhibit slides contain new argument and evidence not previously referenced or relied on. See Paper 33. The parties’ demonstrative exhibits are not evidence and we do not rely on them herein. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 84 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf (explaining that demonstratives exhibits are merely “aids to oral argument and not evidence” and therefore “the Board has not found that such objections are helpful in many cases”). Accordingly, we do not sustain the parties’ objections.” slip op. at 79
Patent outcomesUS 10,482,293 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,482,293 - Zebra Technologies Corporation v. Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2022-01376 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 6–20 are unpatentable: the Board found the asserted Garber-based anticipation and obviousness grounds established, while not reaching three alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Examiner’s prior art references, in order to read an RFID tag, required each tag to be isolated from others, either by distance or through the use of a strategically placed RF shield. The applicant distinguished the claimed subject matter over those relatively unsophisticated RFID readers (that could only read one tag at a time) by amending the claims to recite, by the inclusion of “close proximity” and “unshielded,” a more sophisticated interrogator that did not need to use spacing or shielding. This is consistent with the background section of the ’717 patent stating that RFID systems at the time of the patent were better than relatively unsophisticated bar code systems. See Ex. 1001, 4:6–22; see also PO Resp. 17–18 (Patent Owner quoting the same after re-stating the Board’s preliminary construction and conceding that “[t]he Board conclusion here is supported by the plain language of the ‘717 Patent.”). Specifically, the ’717 patent explains that “[a]n important attribute of RFID interrogation systems is that a number of tags can be interrogated simultaneously stemming from the signal processing,” and that “[a] related and desirable attribute is that there is not typically a minimum separation required between the tags.” Ex. 1001, 4:6– 12. “Most other identification systems, such as systems employing bar codes, usually impose that each device be interrogated separately.” Id. at 4:17–19.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“means-plus-function limitation governed by 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 6 and, accordingly, is limited to corresponding structure (and equivalents) disclosed” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“3. The Alleged Anticipation and Obviousness of Claim 1” slip op. at 39
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“4. Motivation to Combine Garber and Andersen Relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, Petitioner argues that one of” slip op. at 84
Patent outcomesUS 9,996,717 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,996,717 - Zebra Technologies Corp. v. Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2022-01375 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–4, 6–7, 10–19, 21, and 22 unpatentable, finding the asserted Garber grounds proven and not reaching the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
“4. Motivation to Combine Garber and Andersen Relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen for several reasons. Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 244–254). First, Petitioner argues that “Garber and Andersen are analogous art to the ’182 patent because they are in the same field of endeavor—namely, interrogation systems.” Id. Specifically, Petitioner relies on its arguments in Ground 2 that “Garber is analogous to the ’182 patent because it is reasonably pertinent to the technical problem allegedly addressed by the claimed invention.” Id. at 60–61; see id. at 52–53. Petitioner argues that “Andersen is also analogous because it teaches ‘a system for tracking inventory having RFID components” and is designed to remedy the deficiencies of prior art inventory tracking systems using bar codes, which can be torn, destroyed, or hidden from view. Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:8–10, 1:58–2:2, 2:4–5). Additionally, according to Petitioner, Andersen is intended to address multipath errors and teaches that one way to refine radio signals received by RFID tags is by using a Kalman filter. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36). Petitioner also argus that Andersen “provides ample motivation to add a Kalman filter to Garber’s hand-held device” to provide “correction of multi scanned signal / multipath errors.” Pet. 61–62 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36, 12:39–41). “As such,” Petitioner asserts, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious “to modify Garber’s handheld device, which is used inside a library where shelves and other obstacles can result in multipath errors, to use Andersen’s Kalman filter to address these errors.” Id. at 62. Additionally, according to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill “could have combined Andersen’s Kalman filter with Garber’s hand- held device using known methods, and such a filter would merely perform the same function—resolving errors to improve detection accuracy, which is entirely predictable.” Id. Finally, Petitioner contends, one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because “[t]he interrogator components described in Garber and Andersen were well-known at the time,” and the modification of Garber’s interrogator to include Andersen’s Kalman filter would have been straightforward for a person of ordinary skill. Id. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s motivation to combine Garber and Andersen is insufficient. PO Resp. 46–49; PO Sur-reply 27. First, Patent Owner argues that the combination is based on impermissible hindsight because Petitioner did not explain why one of ordinary skill would have combined Garber and Andersen “to teach a control and processing unit employing an adaptive integrated filter or multiscan, coherent signal processing.” PO Resp. 48. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen because “Andersen teaches the use of filters to correct multipath signal errors arising from the transmission of a single signal,” while the ’182 patent “teaches the use of filters to process multiple diverse inputs with a signal representing an RFID object to discern the presence of that object and teaches multiscan, coherent signal processing to coordinate the processing of a plurality of signals.” Id. “In either case,” Patent Owner contends, “the problems solved by the ’182 [p]atent involve multiple signals, not the single signal problem addressed by Andersen.” Id. Petitioner responds that the references themselves provide explicit” slip op. at 83
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“3. Analysis of Independent Claim 1 a) 1[pre]: “[an] interrogator, comprising:” Petitioner argues that, to the extent the preamble is limiting, Garber discloses it. Pet. 16. Petitioner points to Garber’s disclosure that “[a] handheld RFID device can interrogate and identify RFID-tagged items,” and that the hand-held RFID device “preferably includes an RFID reader and writer.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 14:49–62, 15:63–65) (emphasis omitted). “Furthermore,” Petitioner contends, “Figure 4 of Garber discloses ‘a block diagram of an RFID interrogation system interacting with an RFID tag,’” and RFID tags “respond to requests for information by the interrogator.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 3:46–47, 5:44–45). Patent Owner does not present arguments specifically directed to the preamble of claim 1. See PO Resp. Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner’s cited evidence sufficiently supports its contentions regarding the preamble.8” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“4. Motivation to Combine Garber and Andersen Relying on the testimony of Dr. Sharony, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen for several reasons. Pet. 60 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 244–254). First, Petitioner argues that “Garber and Andersen are analogous art to the ’182 patent because they are in the same field of endeavor—namely, interrogation systems.” Id. Specifically, Petitioner relies on its arguments in Ground 2 that “Garber is analogous to the ’182 patent because it is reasonably pertinent to the technical problem allegedly addressed by the claimed invention.” Id. at 60–61; see id. at 52–53. Petitioner argues that “Andersen is also analogous because it teaches ‘a system for tracking inventory having RFID components” and is designed to remedy the deficiencies of prior art inventory tracking systems using bar codes, which can be torn, destroyed, or hidden from view. Id. at 61 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:8–10, 1:58–2:2, 2:4–5). Additionally, according to Petitioner, Andersen is intended to address multipath errors and teaches that one way to refine radio signals received by RFID tags is by using a Kalman filter. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36). Petitioner also argus that Andersen “provides ample motivation to add a Kalman filter to Garber’s hand-held device” to provide “correction of multi scanned signal / multipath errors.” Pet. 61–62 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:25–28, 11:32–36, 12:39–41). “As such,” Petitioner asserts, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious “to modify Garber’s handheld device, which is used inside a library where shelves and other obstacles can result in multipath errors, to use Andersen’s Kalman filter to address these errors.” Id. at 62. Additionally, according to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill “could have combined Andersen’s Kalman filter with Garber’s hand- held device using known methods, and such a filter would merely perform the same function—resolving errors to improve detection accuracy, which is entirely predictable.” Id. Finally, Petitioner contends, one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because “[t]he interrogator components described in Garber and Andersen were well-known at the time,” and the modification of Garber’s interrogator to include Andersen’s Kalman filter would have been straightforward for a person of ordinary skill. Id. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s motivation to combine Garber and Andersen is insufficient. PO Resp. 46–49; PO Sur-reply 27. First, Patent Owner argues that the combination is based on impermissible hindsight because Petitioner did not explain why one of ordinary skill would have combined Garber and Andersen “to teach a control and processing unit employing an adaptive integrated filter or multiscan, coherent signal processing.” PO Resp. 48. According to Patent Owner, one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Garber and Andersen because “Andersen teaches the use of filters to correct multipath signal errors arising from the transmission of a single signal,” while the ’182 patent “teaches the use of filters to process multiple diverse inputs with a signal representing an RFID object to discern the presence of that object and teaches multiscan, coherent signal processing to coordinate the processing of a plurality of signals.” Id. “In either case,” Patent Owner contends, “the problems solved by the ’182 [p]atent involve multiple signals, not the single signal problem addressed by Andersen.” Id. Petitioner responds that the references themselves provide explicit” slip op. at 83
- ExcludeDenied
“rely on them herein. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 84 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ tpgnov.pdf (explaining that demonstratives exhibits are merely “aids to oral argument and not evidence” and therefore “the Board has not found that such objections are helpful in many cases”). Accordingly, we do not sustain the parties’ objections.” slip op. at 88
Patent outcomesUS 9,646,182 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,646,182 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2023 · IPR2023-01040 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 48–87 based on the petition’s asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“previously challenged the same claims of the same patent. General Plastic, Paper 19, 16. Here, Patent Owner asserts that although Petitioner did not do so, we should consider Petitioner as having a substantial relationship to Volkswagen, which is also as a defendant in Patent Owner’s infringement suit. Prelim. Resp. 50–51. In that regard, Patent Owner relies on Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11, 2 (PTAB April 12, 2019) (precedential). We do not agree, because Valve involved parties that were accused of infringement based on the same product. Valve, Paper 11, 9–10. Here, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner is accused of infringing “based on the same type of headlight technology” (Prelim. Resp. 51), but that is insufficient. Patent Owner asserts that both parties’ accused headlights were “developed jointly with Hella KGaA Hueck & Co.” (id.), but that also is an insufficient connection for us to consider two parties substantially related for purposes of discretionary denial. As Petitioner points out, it and VW are direct competitors, and they are accused of infringing based on two different products, not as a supplier and customer of a single product, as at issue in Valve. Prelim. Reply 1. Additionally, although Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner and VW “have a history of coordinating serial IPR petitions against asserted patents” (Prelim. Resp. 52), the facts of each case are unique and we will not infer a motive from prior proceedings. Having considered Patent Owner’s arguments,8 we conclude that the first General Plastic factor weighs strongly against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute that level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 6. We adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION The parties agree that no express claim construction is required at this stage. Pet. 8; Prelim. Resp. 6. As discussed below, however, Patent Owner applies and argues for a particular construction of “classifying an object.” See infra at 11 (§ II.D.1.a). We discuss that potential construction below. Beyond that term, we agree with the parties and therefore do not further construe the claims for this decision. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“an object is an oncoming vehicle or anything else, i.e., classifying an object.” Prelim. Resp. 17. In Patent Owner’s view, Alden’s CPU instead “simply determines whether detected incoming light has a threshold intensity and controls the beam segments produced by the LED elements 119 of headlight 123 accordingly.” Id. at 17–18. Patent Owner takes the position that “classifying an object requires identifying an object and distinguishing that object among multiple classes or types of objects, such as distinguishing between vehicles, road signs, and pedestrians as described in the ’551 patent. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1001, 44:36–45:44, 52:66–53:4). We do not agree that the two specification passages Patent Owner cites compel such a construction. The first passage relates to a preferred embodiment that includes “a machine vision system with pattern recognition capabilities as is known in the art.” Ex. 1001, 44:37–40. The ’551 patent describes that, using known pattern-recognition methods, camera outputs “are analyzed by appropriate computational means employing trained pattern recognition techniques to classify, identify or locate the contents.” Id. at 44:63–45:3. Although the specification states that known technologies can be sued to classify an image’s contents, that does not define or restrict the understanding of what is required to “classify” an object. The second passage states that, “[u]sing color and pattern recognition techniques it is possible to determine what is a sign.” Id. at 52:66–67. To the extent that informs our understanding of “classify,” is supports a simple correlation between an image and an object. It does not include distinguishing the object among multiple classes or types of objects as Patent Owner contends.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,955,551 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2023 · IPR2023-01039 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 8, 10–18, and 24–47 based on the petition grounds because Mercedes-Benz showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialDenied
“1. Lack of particularity First, Patent Owner contends that the Petition lacks particularity under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) because it improperly combines anticipation and obviousness 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), effective March 16, 2013, amended the applicable statutes. Because the application from which the ’551 patent issued was filed before this date, the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply. 4 US 2003/0137849 A1, filed Jan. 22, 2002 (Ex. 1005). 5 US 6,049,749, issued Apr. 11, 2000 (Ex. 1006). 6 US 2002/0057572 A1, published May 16, 2002 (Ex. 1007). 7 WO 2001/07538 A2, published Sept. 27, 2001 (Ex. 1008). grounds based on Alden alone. Id. at 49–52. We do not agree that the Petition’s approach presents a problem or is hard to understand. As discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately supported its obviousness contention based on Alden alone (see infra at 17 (§ II.D.2)), but that does not undermine the anticipation ground or make it difficult to understand. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the Petition warrants discretionary denial for lack of particularity.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Resp. 54–59. In that regard, Patent Owner relies on Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11, 2 (PTAB April 12, 2019) (precedential). We do not agree, because Valve involved parties that were accused of infringement based on the same product. Valve, Paper 11, 9–10. Here, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner is accused of infringing “based on the same type of headlight technology” (Prelim. Resp. 55), but that is insufficient. Patent Owner asserts that both parties’ accused headlights were “developed jointly with Hella KGaA Hueck & Co.” (id. at 56), but that also is an insufficient connection for us to consider two parties substantially related for purposes of discretionary denial. As Petitioner points out, it and VW are direct competitors, and they are accused of infringing based on two different products, not as a supplier and customer of a single product, as at issue in Valve. Prelim. Reply 1. Additionally, although Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner and VW “have a history of coordinating serial IPR petitions against asserted patents” (Prelim. Resp. 56), the facts of each case are unique and we will not infer a motive from prior proceedings. Having considered Patent Owner’s arguments,8 we conclude that the first General Plastic factor weighs strongly against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted 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 set forth below, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute that level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 6. We adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,955,551 - Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00974 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 6–9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 22–25, 27, 28, 32, and 36–38 are unpatentable as obvious over Hwang and McFarland.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent field as well as three years of experience in wireless communication technology, or a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or other equivalent degree.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–40). Patent Owner has not proposed an alternative, and, having reviewed the arguments and evidence in the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, as we did in the Institution Decision, finding it consistent with the ’641 patent and the asserted prior art. C.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner proposes a construction for the term “radio network information” in dependent claims 9, 14, and 28. See Pet. 7. Patent Owner has not proposed a specific construction for any claim term and has not disputed Petitioner’s proposed construction for “radio network information.” In view of the analysis below, we determine that we need not expressly construe “radio network information,” and that no other claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“Figure from Page 17 of the Akl Supplemental Declaration We find it unclear from this figure and the associated explanation in the Declaration (see Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 30–32) how the map burst and traffic burst blocks in green and blue factor in, because they cannot be received by the 2.5 MHz device. Dr. Akl testified that “McFarland teaches that necessary messages, e.g., including broadcast messages, or any other messages that need to be received by multiple nodes, ‘must be transmitted in a mode that all nodes to which they are directed are able to receive,’ that is, the base mode (e.g., the core-band).” Ex. 1038 ¶ 31 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 60). He then states that one “would understand that because Hwang’s AAS_MAP_Burst_Location_IE contains system information and an index of where the MAP bursts are going to be, it is a message that needs to be received by multiple nodes, and thus is a necessary message that must be transmitted in a mode that all nodes to which they are directed are able to receive.” Id. It does not appear, however, that the blue and green blocks could be part of “broadcast messages” intended for a 2.5 MHz mobile station because they cannot be received by that mobile station. We thus do not agree that McFarland would suggest including map burst blocks in the 2.5 MHz band because they are “broadcast messages.” We also fail to see why the map burst locations would need to be received by multiple nodes, as that seems to be data that is tailored to the mobile device with which the base station is communicating.7 However, we do find it readily apparent that if the base station and the mobile station have determined to communicate using a particular bandwidth, as contemplated by the combination presented in the Petition, the map bursts necessarily would be included in that bandwidth in order for the communication scheme to be successful. The mobile station would need to” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,953,641 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,953,641
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.