• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01039 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8, 10–18, and 24–47 are unpatentable: Alden anticipates claims 24–27, 29–35, 37–43, and 45–47; the remaining claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or 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 2001/70538 A2, published Sept. 27, 2001 (Ex. 1008). 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. PO Resp. 6. We adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art and refer to people with it as skilled artisans.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “The problem with Patent Owner’s claim-construction position is that neither the dictionary definition nor the ’551 patent’s specification establish any degree of proof, verification, or confirmation that an object has been correctly identified. The specification discloses that “techniques known in the art” may be used “to classify, identify or locate the contents” visible to a camera sensor. Ex. 1001, 44:67–45:9. That does not establish any certainty obtained by the preexisting techniques. The specification states that the system can “illuminate distant overhead and roadside signs” and can use “[i]mage recognition via a camera” so that the illumination beam may “follow the retroreflective sign as the vehicle moves.” Id. at 51:59–67. That disclosure does not speak to any degree of confirmation or certainty. The specification’s other disclosures are no different. Id. at 52:19–27 (disclosing automated control over lighting and referencing “automatic dimming of high beam due to detection of oncoming vehicles”), 52:66–53:4 (“Using color and pattern recognition techniques it is possible to determine what is a sign.”), 63:9–12 (“Using real time image processing methodologies with image and scene recognition technology known in the art, room or outdoor area elements, objects and people are identified.”), 64:46–49 (“Using machine vision technology known in the art such as neural networks training and other pattern recognition techniques the vision system has sensor, algorithmic and computation means for identifying devices or objects.”), 69:54–57 (“In a preferred embodiment of the invention the logical controller 454 receiving image input from the camera 453 and running pattern recognition software will identify what is the visual task a person is trying to perform.”), 75:48–62 (“Using programmed scene recognition algorithms, the luminaire’s computer vision system comprised of the camera sensor 496 and logical controller 494 identifies the food on the plate, looks-up in storage the recommended CCT and powers each of the different colored LED chips aimed thereon at the correct power level in order to provide the optimal color illumination.”), 76:33–39 (“[A] camera vision system has algorithmic means to identify and track the position of people and objects and the logical controller has motion control means for re-aiming the light sources towards targeted elements and changing the power level to the LED chips.”). None of those disclosures addresses a requirement for confirming or verifying an identification that the system makes; nor does any address a particular accuracy requirement in identifying an object. Based on the specification using “identify” without any requirement that identifying an object requires confirmation or verification of the object’s true identify, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Although the construction itself similarly does not expressly require the confirmation or verification that Patent Owner seeks to impose, we understand that to be Patent Owner’s intent, and accordingly do not adopt the proposed construction. The parties dispute no other aspect of “identify,” and we therefore need not expressly construe the term.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Because Alden describes its segmented headlights as implementing a process using two-dimensional signals for two-dimensional dimming functionality, we find that Figure 5 depicts a section of an embodiment that contains more than a single row of lighting elements. Stated otherwise, Alden’s disclosures are consistent with each other and are directed to a two-dimensional approach to sensing, control, and illumination. Further, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has not addressed the legal standard for lack of enablement. Pet. Reply 2. In particular, to overcome the presumption that prior-art disclosures are enabled, Patent Owner must show ordinarily skilled artisans would require undue experimentation to practice the disclosed invention. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F. 3d 1313, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F. 3d 1282, 1287– 88 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We do not agree with Patent Owner that Alden lacks a presumption of enablement (see PO Surreply 7–8), because we determine that Petitioner’s contentions rely on Alden’s disclosures regarding its invention as a whole. Other than arguing that Figure 5 discloses a single-row embodiment that is unusable with Alden’s other disclosures, Patent Owner has made no attempt to show Alden lacks enablement. Patent Owner has not addressed what experimentation skilled artisans would require to practice an invention using Alden’s Figure 5 segmented headlight with the remainder of Alden’s system as disclosed in Figures 2, 3, and 4, and Alden’s corresponding textual description. We therefore determine that Patent Owner has not shown Alden to lack enablement for its disclosed invention.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have had reason to incorporate Kobayashi’s teachings that its controller receives “road map information” from a “road profile calculating means” and uses it to adjust the headlamp’s illumination. Pet. 63–64. Petitioner reasons that it would be obvious to “apply these teachings to Alden to use map data to identify road curvature when adapting the LEDs of Alden to ‘direct light into the corner.’” Id. at 64 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 122). And Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans had reason to do so because it would “maximize successful detection in different environments” such as where the road lack reflectors. Id. at 65 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 123). Other than as discussed above regarding Alden’s disclosures, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s showing for claims 28, 36, and 44. We have considered the full record, including evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner on whether the combination of Alden and Kobayashi discloses each limitation of claims 28, 36, and 44, and whether skilled artisans would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings as asserted. Based on the full record, we conclude that Petitioner has proven that claims 28, 36, and 44 would have been obvious over Alden and Kobayashi. Pet. 62–65.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• Cisco Systems, Inc. / Fortinet, Inc. v. Infoexpress Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00676 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–10, 14, 16, 22–23, 25, and 27 on the asserted obviousness ground based on Krantz and Herrmann.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “combination of Krantz and Herrmann (see Pet 19–99) and find that, on the record as it now stands, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one claim. As described above,” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of relevant experience in networking and network security, and related fields.” Pet. 4. Petitioner also asserts that “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted

    “combination of Krantz and Herrmann (see Pet 19–99) and find that, on the record as it now stands, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one claim. As described above,” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached

    “qualifies as prior art to the ’450 patent “because the InfoExpress inventors conceived of the invention [of the ’450 patent] before the effective dates [of Krantz and Herrmann] and exercised reasonably continuous diligence in reducing the claimed inventions to practice.” Prelim. Resp. 33–45. Petitioner disagrees that the present record sufficiently shows that the inventors of the ’450 patent conceived of the invention before the effective date of Krantz or Herrmann and that the inventors exercised reasonably continuous diligence in reducing that invention to practice. See Prelim. Reply 1–7. In particular, Petitioner raises questions with respect to the independence of Patent Owner’s evidence from the inventor testimony that evidence is intended to corroborate, as well as with respect to whether the evidence offered by Patent Owner sufficiently shows conception, reduction to practice, and reasonably continuous diligence. Id. We do not think the information of record is sufficient to antedate Krantz and Herrmann such that we should deny institution of inter partes review on that basis. First, Patent Owner’s arguments rely on the testimony of inventor Stacey C. Lum, who has not yet been subject to cross-examination. See Prelim. Resp. 35–45 (citing Ex. 2003). Second, Petitioner identifies several issues where further development of the record may be helpful. For example, Patent Owner’s asserted date of conception is associated with the date of an engineering specification included in the record as Exhibit 2011. See Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 12; Ex. 2011; Ex. 2012). We agree with Petitioner (see Prelim. Reply 4–5) that it is unclear, based on the present record, whether Exhibit 2011 corroborates the testimony supporting Patent Owner’s conception date given that the present record does not establish the author of Exhibit 2011. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 22 (inventor Stacey C. Lum testifying only that “InfoExpress personnel drafted EX2011”). These and other issues relating to the prior-art status of Krantz and Herrmann are, in our view, best left for trial after full development of the record.3” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,677,450
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoInstituted
  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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoInstituted
  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 denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,953,641
• Cradlepoint, Inc. / Honeywell International, Inc. et al. v. Sisvel S.P.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00580 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Sachs; claims 3–5, 9, and 10 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Petitioner contends that: A POSITA at or about the time of the alleged invention (January 5, 2006) would have had a degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, with at least three years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience designing or implementing wireless radio systems for data transmission and retransmission. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–53). Patent Owner contends that a person having ordinary skill at the time of invention—January 5, 2006—in the relevant art would be one a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer sciences, or telecommunications, along with three to five or more years of practical experience in the field. A combination of more experience in the field and less education or more education and less experience in the field would also suffice. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 27). According to Patent Owner, “[a]lthough Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art is similar to Petitioners’ proposal, Patent Owner includes the qualification that a combination of more experience in the field and less education, or more education and less experience in the field would also suffice.” Id. The parties’ contentions as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar, and there does not appear to be a dispute that needs to be resolved. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’396 patent and the cited references. The findings and conclusions rendered in this Decision would not change had we adopted Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Petitioner proposes “that all claim terms should be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning, as understood by a POSITA and consistent with the specification and file history of the ’396 patent.” Pet. 34–35. Patent Owner “agrees that the claim[] terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning” and “reserves the right to provide alternate constructions if any of the terms become material to the Board’s decision.” PO Resp. 10. We need not expressly define any claim term in our Decision in order to resolve the issues before us. 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). We note that the parties both implicitly construe claim limitation 1[c], “stopping the timer when the at least one data block is received from the transmitter while the timer is running, in order to prevent a triggering of a status report before the timer expires” similarly. See e.g., infra § III.D.2.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “separate ‘reordering procedure,’ to which the timer is tied.” Id. (emphasis added). We agree that the cited evidence in Sachs more closely supports Petitioner’s position that the “timer is stopped when and because the missing PDUs are received,” and not after the occurrence of some additional step in which PDUs in the RLC buffer are shuffled into sequential order. Petitioner persuasively supports its position with, for example, its annotated version of Figure 5, reproduced above, which depicts that the T_reorder timer is stopped when out-of-order PDUs 3 and 4 are received––Sachs does not depict or describe an additional step of reshuffling occurring before the timer is stopped. Pet. 41. Patent Owner’s argument that Sachs teaches “a reordering procedure is performed before any other actions are taken” is unavailing because it is not supported by the cited evidence. In support of this argument, Patent Owner’s Declarant, Mr. Regis J. Bates, Jr., offers similar testimony that “the expiry of the timer in Sachs does not trigger a status report as in the ’396 patent, instead a reordering procedure is performed before any other actions are taken,” but does not explain why the reordering procedure takes place before “any other actions.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 53 (citing Ex. 1003, Figs. 4, 5, Abstract, 8:25–31, 9:11–15) (emphasis added). In his Second Declaration, Mr. Bates adds no further detail or explanation and cites the same portions of Sachs. Ex. 2006 ¶ 29. None of the cited portions of Sachs sufficiently supports a finding that Sachs teaches or suggests that “a reordering procedure is performed before any other actions are taken,” as Patent Owner contends and as Patent Owner’s Declarant testifies. Id.” slip op. at 18

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

    “We clarify that limitations 1[c] and 1[d] cannot both occur in response to the same set of stimuli. Limitation 1[c] can be triggered in response to one set of stimuli and limitation [d] can be triggered in response to a different set of stimuli as is shown in Sachs’s figures. In order for Petitioner to prevail, it need only show one of these mutually-exclusive claim limitations to satisfy the claim, as it contends. Petitioner persuasively shows that, under a first theory, with a first set of stimuli, the timer is stopped before it expires and limitations 1[a], 1[b], and 1[c] are performed as shown in Figure 5 of Sachs. Ex. 1003, Fig. 5. Under a second theory, with a different, second set of stimuli, the timer is allowed to expire and limitations 1[a], 1[b], and 1[d] are performed as shown in Figure 4 of Sachs. Id. at Fig. 4. In Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 4, PDUs 3 and 4 are not received within the time period set by the T_reorder timer––as such, the T_reorder timer expires and a status report acknowledging PDUs up to 14 and negatively acknowledging PDUs 3 and 4 (i.e., indicating that PDUs 3 and 4 are missing) is sent. Pet. 41. In Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 5, the T_reorder timer is stopped when out-of-order PDUs 3 and 4 are received within the time period set by the T_reorder timer and as such, the T_reorder timer is stopped before it can expire. Id.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,869,396 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,869,396
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2022 · PGR2021-00108 · APJ Aaron W Moore · PGR · Institution

  Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable, including because the asserted combination did not link rule generation to the packet correlation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Obviousness Analysis A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, primarily: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.6 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–2, 7–8, 10, 12–13, and 17–18 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious in view of Paxton and Sutton. See Pet. 6, 18–64. For the reasons described below, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2-3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary Response. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’797 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. C.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Patent Owner argues that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of the terms “determining . . . a first plurality of log entries” and “determining . . . a second plurality of log entries” is “identifying” or “ascertaining” log entries.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner also argues that “[t]he terms “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the first plurality of packets received by the network device,” and “provisioning, . . . based on the determined correlation, . . . rules configured to identify the second plurality of packets transmitted by the network device” (“provisioning rules”) . . . should be given their plain and ordinary meaning—rules configured to identify packets.” Prelim. Resp. 20. Neither party, however, argues that the prior art arguments presented in the Petition turn on the construction of these terms. Instead, it appears that they are raised as claim construction issues only because Petitioner is challenging the language under Section 112. We will discuss the Section 112 arguments below, but do not see a dispute about the constructions offered by the parties above the makes a difference in the prior art analysis and, therefore, do not construe these terms at this time. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “respect to this limitation for several reasons, including that Petitioner’s “alleged rule generation and provisioning” is responsive to detecting malicious activity, not “based on the determined correlation.” Prelim. Resp. 38. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner. The claims require “generating, by the computing system and based on the determined correlation, one or more rules configured to identify packets received from the first host.” We do not have sufficient argument or evidence to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to generate these rules “based on” the determined correlation.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,931,797
• Cradlepoint, Inc. / Sierra Wireless, Inc. et al. v. Sisvel International S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01103 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious over TS 24.301, Nokia-002, and any one of T-Mobile, Nokia-533, or Samsung.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, with at least three years of relevant industry or research experience, including designing or implementing cellular radio systems,” and that this person “would also have familiarity with WCDMA” and “with the 3GPP technical specifications and packet data in cellular networks.” Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:18–20, 1:24–27; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–38). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Response. We adopt Petitioner’s formulation because we find it consistent with the disclosures of the ’503 patent, which “relates generally to mobile communication system and, more particularly, to the provision of voice services in Evolved Packet System.” Ex. 1001, 1:18–20. We note in particular that the ’503 patent cites a voluminous amount of 3GPP prior art (see Ex. 1001, pp. 2–5), which suggests that a person working in this particular field would have been “familiar[] with the 3GPP technical specifications and packet data in cellular networks,” as Petitioner asserts.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION The parties do not raise any claim construction issues and we, accordingly, do not construe any claim terms. 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 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “We find this unpersuasive because we conclude that one of skill in the art would not need to be “familiar with the inner-workings of 3GPP,” and that the “document storage processes” were not “labyrinthine,” but rather a fairly simple set of folders neatly organized on the website by subject matter and meeting date. We credit Mr. Bishop’s testimony that “[c]ompanies around the world—and the interested POSITAs employed by those companies—would have been motivated to stay up to date regarding 3GPP developments to ensure their products, networks, and research programmes remained consistent with and relevant to the specifications being developed.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 33. We further credit Mr. Bishop’s testimony that “an interested POSITA could have located relevant documents of interest,” including the references at issue in this case, “on the 3GPP website using reasonable diligence based on the website’s indexing scheme.” Id. ¶ 57; see id. ¶¶ 57– 108. Cf. M & K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 985 F.3d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“A skilled artisan browsing the JCT-VC website would understand that the website is structured to serve the purpose of the JCT-VC organization, i.e., to develop HEVC standards through member meetings and communications, not to function as a passive digital library. Hence, a skilled artisan browsing the JCT-VC website would realize that documents are hosted under the meeting pages.”).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to combine these references because (1) 3GPP “already taught that the teachings of TS 24.301 and Nokia-002 were to be combined,” (2) “T-Mobile and Nokia-533 . . . themselves . . . teach a POSITA that they were intended for combination with TS 24.301,” and (3) “a POSITA, understanding Nokia-002’s instruction that the VoIMS indicator is intended to guide network selection for voice services,” would have been motivated to add “Samsung’s teachings, which also referenced TS 24.301, especially when they were submitted for the same working group meeting.” Pet. 42–44. We find this to be a sufficient motivation, and Patent Owner does not argue otherwise. Petitioner provides a similar analysis for independent claims 4, 7, and 10, dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 13, and for claims 1–13 using Nokia-533 or Samsung in place of T-Mobile. See Pet. 53–55 (claim 4, to a “non-transitory computer readable medium,” citing Ex. 1001, 24:42–46), 55 (claim 7, to a method with a “processor,” citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 378–382), 56– 58 (claim 10, adding “selection of another radio access technology, citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, 16, 10; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 215–240), 58–59 (claims 2, 5, 8, and 12, adding that “the NAS protocol Accept message is an ATTACH accept message,” citing, e.g., Ex. 1006, 8), 60–61 (claims 3, 6, 9, and 13, adding that “the NAS protocol Accept message is a TRACKING AREA UPDATE ACCEPT message,” citing, e.g., Ex. 1006, 13), 61–62 (claim 11, adding that “the first indicator is a IMS voice over packet-switched session (IMS VoPS) indicator,” citing, e.g., Ex. 1006, 2, 8, 13), 62–73 (Nokia-533 instead of T- Mobile: citing Ex. 1008; Ex. 1002, 440–441), and 73–80 (Samsung instead of T-Mobile: citing Ex. 1009, 3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 491). We agree with Petitioner’s analysis.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,879,503 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,879,503
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01205 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 8–12, and 14–16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grupp ’483; the priority applications do not support or enable the claims’ full scope.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateEntitled to earlier dateMixed

    “To support a claim to a genus, a specification must disclose “either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Here, the recited genus is an interface layer comprising a metal oxide, where the interface layer is configured to provide a specific contact resistivity between a contact metal and a semiconductor of than 1 Ω- μm2. Ex. 1001, 18:37–43. It is undisputed that the only species the pre- 2011 priority applications disclose is TiO2, as set forth in the following passage: Two other properties of the dielectric deserve mention. First is the property of the height of the barrier compared to the semiconductor conduction band (for electrons). In making the barrier thinner than a silicide barrier, the tradeoff may be a higher tunnel barrier (e.g., 2 eV for nitride, compared with about half the gap of 0.6 eV for silicide). Spacer layers may be used with lower barriers (e.g., TiO2 has a barrier of less than 1 eV). Nevertheless, even with the higher barrier to electrons, the present inventors have determined that the resistance can still be one hundred times lower than a contact to silicon with a silicide barrier. Id. at 17:59–18:2 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 18

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “evidence shows, that the disclosure does not enable specific contact resistance down to zero. Ex. 1016, Schubert Decl. ¶¶ 87–90. Instead, Patent Owner argues that one of skill in the art would have understood there to be an “inherent lower limit” and that the claims are enabled because one of skill in the art could achieve that lower limit through experimentation based on the disclosure of patent. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument, for two main reasons. First, we do not agree that the cases cited by Patent Owner establish that the enablement requirement is satisfied if one of skill in the art could experiment in accordance with the disclosure to find a practical end of an open ended range recited in a claim. Patent Owner principally relies on Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, but the Federal Circuit in that case affirmed the jury verdict of enablement because “the upper limit of the Young’s modulus of the structural member would lie somewhere between the Young’s modulus of the wood fiber and that of the polymer used in the composition.” 474 F.3d at 1377. In other words, there were two known quantities that provided a fixed range. That is not the case here, where Patent Owner does not point to any such predefined limits. Patent Owner also cites a district court case, PerkinElmer Health Scis., Inc. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 962 F. Supp. 2d 304, 310 (D. Mass. 2013). That case is not directly on point, because it was considering claim construction and not enablement, but that court also found an existing practical upper limit to the” slip op. at 36

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

    “Neither party asks for a construction of the subject claim language, and we determine that the plain meaning of “a specific contact resistivity . . . of less than 1Ω μm2” would encompass all specific contact resistances below 1 Ω-μm2 and down to zero.” slip op. at 35

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableReference is prior artUnpatentable

    “reference for purposes of anticipation under section 102 [] differs from the enablement standard under section 112.” Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Enablement under section 112, which is required for priority under section 120, requires enablement of the full breadth of a claim. Wyeth and Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, 720 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2013); MagSil, 687 F.3d at 1384; 35 U.S.C. § 120. Enablement for anticipation does not; rather it requires only enablement of an embodiment or embodiments that fall within the scope of the claim. Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“a CIP's claim for a genus might not be enabled by a parent's disclosure, but that parent may enable a species that anticipates the CIP's claim for a genus . . . . the Court of Custom and Patent Appeals [] made clear the differences between the requirements for claim-anticipating disclosures and for claim-supporting disclosures”) (citing In re Lukach, 442, F.2d 967, 969–970 (CCPA 1971)). Here, the enablement challenge for priority is for a lack of enablement of the full breadth of the recited range, and in particular, a lack of enablement of the lower part of the recited range (that which is at or near zero). No party has argued that the upper part of the recited range (just below 1 Ω-μm2) is not enabled by either the priority applications or Grupp ’483. See, e.g., Pet. 20; PO Resp. 1–2; Pet. Reply 27–28; PO Sur-reply 17– 18. And enablement by a prior art patent is presumed. In re Antor Media Pharm., Inc., 545 F.3d 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, the record does not reflect an inconsistency in holding the priority applications as not enabling the breadth of the recited range while treating Grupp ’483 as enabling the upper part of the range for anticipation. As set forth below, we find that Petitioner has proven that Grupp ’483 anticipates every challenged claim.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 9,461,167 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,461,167

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.