• Microsoft Corporation v. Daedalus Blue, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 21, 2022 · IPR2021-00831 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–25 were shown unpatentable: claims 15–21 and 23–25 as obvious over Gelb and Tivoli, and claim 22 as obvious over Gelb, Tivoli, and Callaghan.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We begin with the language of the independent challenged claims. Claim 15 recites “[a] method for handling files within a policy-based data management system, the method comprising.” Ex. 1001, 16:21–22. Claim 23 recites “[a] storage device storing computer code executable by a processor to carry out a method comprising.” Id. at 16:61–62. The remaining limitations of the independent claims are the same and directed to (1) providing a policy set with at least one service class rule; (2) receiving one or more attributes of a file from one of a plurality of clients, the clients comprising at least two different computing platforms; (3) applying the service class rule to the file to assign a service class to the file; and (4) conducting operations on the file in a manner according to the service class. Id. at 16:23–31, 16:63–17:4. The involved claims do not recite a “distributed storage system,” a “storage area network system,” or a “networked, distributed system [environment].” Thus, even if Patent Owner were correct that an invention that involves a networked, distributed system environment dictates that the plurality of clients also be in the networked environment, the claims themselves don’t require a networked, distributed system environment. Indeed, the preamble of claim 23 recites “a storage device,” and the preamble of claim 15 recites a “data management system,” terms that are much broader than those the Patent Owner uses to describe “the invention.” PO Resp. 8–10. Although Patent Owner never explains what “clients in a networked environment” means, Dr. White testifies that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ‘plurality of clients’ to refer to clients in a networked distributed systems environment, such that each challenged claim requires a networked environment where clients communicate through a network.” Ex. 2024 ¶ 50. But, again, there is nothing in the claims that recites a “networked distributed systems environment,” a “networked environment,” or “clients communicating through a network.” The method claims are directed to performing certain steps to a file from one of a plurality of clients. No networking or clients communicating through a network is claimed or even shown to be relevant to what is claimed. Indeed, in urging us to narrowly construe the term “plurality of clients,” Patent Owner does not discuss the claim language at all. PO Resp. 8–10. But, the name of the game is the claim. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, Patent Owner fails to direct us to anything in the claim language itself that would support Patent Owner’s construction of “plurality of clients,” and we find nothing that supports the argument.” slip op. at 11

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

    “two different computing platforms.” Patent Owner contends that the limitation “computing platforms” should be construed to mean “operating systems.” PO Resp. 10–12. Petitioner disagrees and argues that “computing platforms” should be construed to mean “the combination of computer hardware and an operating system.” Pet. Reply 4–6. We understand that resolution of this issue is relevant only to Petitioner’s challenge based on Devarakonda. PO Resp. 2–3, 38–39 (arguing that Gelb alone fails to teach a plurality of clients but not addressing Gelb in combination with Tivoli), 55– 59 (arguing that Devarakonda fails to disclose clients that comprise at least two different operating systems); Pet. Reply 15–16; Tr. 5:16–22, 7:24–8:3, 25:22–26:23. For reasons explained below, we need not decide Petitioner’s challenge based on Devarakonda. Accordingly, for purposes of our Decision, we need not construe “computing platforms.” Other Terms We need not otherwise construe any other terms in the claims. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). D. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 15–21 and 23–25 over Gelb and Tivoli” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner, relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Christopher Jules White, argues that a POSITA would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, along with two years of experience in the design, operation, or control of networked data management systems, and/or distributed systems.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 2024 ¶ 47). Patent Owner further argues that “Dr. White’s opinions and the arguments in this paper apply under either proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 2024 ¶ 49). We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill except that we delete the phrase “at least” to avoid ambiguity in the definition of the level of skill. Patent Owner’s proposed level overlaps substantially with Petitioner’s proposed level. Even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of qualifications, the outcome would remain the same.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “construction for “plurality of clients” to mean “clients in a networked environment.” Thus, we disagree with Patent Owner that the claims reflect that the ’132 patent’s field of endeavor is distributed storage systems. During oral argument, Patent Owner represented that its “analogous art argument depends on the construction of clients in a networked environment . . . for the first prong.” Tr. 39:20–40:11; see also Sur-Reply 7–8 (“[t]he lack of clients in a networked environment takes Gelb’s single-machine mainframe out of the ’132 Patent’s field of endeavor of distributed storage systems, which involves networked computers”). Accordingly, we determine that Patent Owner has failed to show that Gelb is not relevant to the obviousness analysis and agree with Petitioner that “Gelb’s teachings align closely to the subject matter of the ’132 Patent and therefore are analogous.” Pet. Reply 6.9” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,671,132 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,671,132
• Momentum Dynamics Corporation v. Witricity CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 12, 2022 · IPR2021-01127 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 are unpatentable because Kanno anticipates them and renders them obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in the art. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’635 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill, except that we delete the phrase “at least” to avoid including an expert in the definition of the level of skill.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner. The plain language of claim 1 is expansive, requiring only that the partially cancelled first magnetic field is “outside a spatial region through which power is transferred from the first source magnetic resonator to the device magnetic resonator.” The claim does not refer to a specific type of radiation, let alone far field radiation. The claim drafter deliberately chose the broader term “first magnetic field” rather than specifying “far field radiation.” We find nothing in the claim that points to a more restrictive interpretation of “first magnetic field.” The specification does not limit the partially canceled first magnetic field to far field radiation either, as it expressly contemplates that “the fields that need to be minimized or reduced can be either the far-field, or the near field (if the wavelength is much larger than the distance between the wireless power transfer system to the point of interest).” Ex. 1001, 51:33–37 (emphasis added). The specification could not be any plainer than this— referring explicitly to reducing the far field “or the near field.” Id.5” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner’s arguments rely on a claim construction that we have not adopted. And Kanno discloses at least near-field cancellation by disclosing, for example, that angles “within the range of 90 to 180 degrees . . . minimized leakage of electromagnetic waves into the surrounding space effectively.” Ex. 1005, 28:36–41; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, 28:18–42), 107 (similar), 111 (similar). Patent Owner does not dispute that Kanno teaches near-field cancellation. See, e.g., PO Resp. 9 (“reducing ‘near field strength’ as described in Kanno”). Thus, under the correct construction of this limitation as encompassing near-field radiation, far-field radiation, or both, we agree that Kanno teaches it. Not only that, but Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s Reply argument that Kanno also discloses the same far-field cancellation as the ’635 patent, as Patent Owner neither filed a sur-reply nor addressed Petitioner’s Reply argument at the oral hearing. See Tr. 14:20–21 (resting on the briefs). And we agree with Petitioner’s argument, as supported by the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Arnold, that even under Patent Owner’s incorrect construction, Kanno teaches this limitation. Reply 6–7 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114–15). Dr. Arnold asserts that “[a] reduction in the strength of the electromagnetic near field generally corresponds with a reduction in the strength of the electromagnetic far field.” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 114. Dr. Arnold explains in detail how these near and far fields relate to one another as follows: The term “near field” is a technical term that refers to the electromagnetic near field of an antenna, as opposed to the radiative “far field”. The near field for an electromagnetically short antenna is defined as a region within one electromagnetic wavelength of the antenna. The electrical frequency used in the real-world implementation of the power generator is 3 MHz. Id. 27:44-48. A frequency of 3 MHz corresponds to an electromagnetic wavelength of 100 meters. Here, the measurement distance of 5 meters is well within the near field range of 100 meters, and constitutes a near field measurement. A reduction in the strength of the electromagnetic near field generally corresponds with a reduction in the strength of the electromagnetic far field Id. ¶ 114. In other words, if a field closer to an antenna is reduced, then the field farther from the antenna will be reduced too. This fact is unremarkable, as Dr. Arnold explains, “[t]he principles behind magnetic resonators to wirelessly transfer power have been known for over a century.” Id. ¶ 24.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Even in light of Patent Owner’s arguments, which we address below, we agree with Petitioner. We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kanno’s Example 1 with its fundamental arrangement because the specific details in Example 1 and test data would have indicated to the skilled artisan the desirability of combining these portions of Kanno. As Dr. Arnold persuasively testifies, “a POSA would have been motivated to look to Example 1 because it provides those specific implementation details for circuit component types and values, as well as test data showing that the power generator achieves high power transfer efficiency while minimizing electromagnetic field leakage.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 150. He further testifies, “given that Kanno describes ‘Example 1’ as a real-world implementation, a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success that the power generator using those implementation details would work.” Id. We agree and credit this unrebutted testimony in support of Petitioner’s motivation to combine separate portions of Kanno.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 9,306,635 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,306,635
• Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 21, 2022 · IPR2022-00348 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show Agiwal and Abedini were entitled to their provisional priority dates, leaving no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1–15.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition . . . 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 (2018). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims, and we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDenied

    “Fatal to the Petition, though, Petitioner did not establish that the subject matter relied upon for prior art was effectively filed in the provisional applications. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2), 102(d). Under the AIA, a provisional application must “describe[] the subject matter” relied upon as prior art in the reference patent. 35 U.S.C. §102(d); see also MPEP § 2154.01(b). Petitioner does not assert, much less show, that the provisional applications satisfy the subject-matter requirement. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that Agiwal and Abedini are entitled to the priority dates of their provisional applications, and Petitioner has not shown a likelihood that it would prevail in its challenges to any claims of the ’915 patent.” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedNot shown unpatentable

    “Fatal to the Petition, though, Petitioner did not establish that the subject matter relied upon for prior art was effectively filed in the provisional applications. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2), 102(d). Under the AIA, a provisional application must “describe[] the subject matter” relied upon as prior art in the reference patent. 35 U.S.C. §102(d); see also MPEP § 2154.01(b). Petitioner does not assert, much less show, that the provisional applications satisfy the subject-matter requirement. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that Agiwal and Abedini are entitled to the priority dates of their provisional applications, and Petitioner has not shown a likelihood that it would prevail in its challenges to any claims of the ’915 patent.” slip op. at 6

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 10,484,915
• Triller, Inc. v. Tiktok Pte. Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2022-00181 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 19, 23, 24, or 28 unpatentable on any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner contends that the PCT application does not include “anything that could reasonably be characterized” as disclosing the metadata limitation. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1025 ¶ 81). Petitioner, however, does not elaborate or address any aspect of the PCT application’s disclosure. See id. Patent Owner argues that the PCT application discloses the metadata limitation. Prelim. Resp. 6–12. According to Patent Owner, the PCT application describes a mobile device receiving and displaying “descriptive information” about a track (such as the song title, artist, and duration) without downloading the track itself, and this “descriptive information” discloses the “track meta-data” recited in the claim. Id. at 8–11 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:27–5:9, 11:6–16, 13:14–21, 51:7–13, 91:7–10, 105:16–18, 116:1–10, 133:2–3, 134:10–15, 149:21–23, 149:25–150:3, 150:12–26, 152:1–9, 153, 156). In support, Patent Owner notes that the PCT application describes “[m]etadata” as “[i]ndividual items of data or collections of data, of,” among other things, mobile content such as “full music downloads.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1008, 13:14–21) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner further explains by asserting that “[t]he fact that the track metadata is provided as a search result, but not the music file itself, demonstrates” disclosure of the metadata limitation. Id. at 9. In addition, Patent Owner submits that the PCT application discloses “sharing” track information because users can send their playlists and recommendations to other users. Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1008, 5:21–22, 7:2–4, 59:10–14, 61:15–28, 65:1–17, 66:18–9, 67:7–9, 101:17–102:13, 130:8–17, Figs. 84, 97, 106). On this record, we are persuaded that the PCT application discloses the metadata limitation, which (for purposes of this Decision) requires a software application that uses “track meta-data” that (1) exists separately from the music track, (2) exists separately in any way from other forms of metadata, and/or (3) is stored in a separate database. See supra § II.B (claim construction). In particular, Patent Owner persuasively shows that the PCT application discloses a mobile device application that uses “track meta-data” (e.g., attributes of music tracks, such as the song’s title, artist, and duration) stored on the mobile device while the corresponding track and its metadata remain separately stored on a remote server.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “2. Law on Written Description Support “It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “To satisfy the written description requirement [in § 112,] the disclosure of the prior application must ‘convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of the invention.’” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The sufficiency of written description support is based on “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. “The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement” necessarily “varies predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. The invention need not be described in haec verba, but a disclosure that merely renders obvious the claims does not provide adequate written description support. Id. at 1352.” slip op. at 12

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

    “connect these dots. For example, it is unclear whether Petitioner proposes a combination of Abrams’s web browser and Khedouri’s music application, or whether it instead proposes that one be replaced with the other. See id. at 53–54. Petitioner also does not address whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining a web browser and a music application. See id. Rather, Petitioner simply refers to combining “Khedouri’s music sharing functions” with “Abrams’ social networking functions” (id. at 54), which does not address the requirement that “a software application” meet these limitations. Moreover, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the functionality of Abrams and Khedouri. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (obviousness requires analysis of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue”); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). Liberally interpreting the relevant portion of the Petition, Petitioner contends that a motivation to combine is established because: (1) the references themselves provide the motivation to combine, (2) the proposed combination was desirable and predictable, (3) an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to add music to Abrams, and/or (4) an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to add Abrams’s social networking functions to Khedouri. See Pet. 53–54; see also supra § II.E.1 (reproducing relevant portion of Petition with corresponding reference numbers). We are not persuaded. themselves provide the requisite motivation. See Pet. 53. Abrams is directed to “connecting users in an online computer system based on their relationships within social networks.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 1; see also id. ¶ 36 (“What is needed is a system that allows individuals to replicate the process of developing personal relationships through social networks, using a computer system and database.”). Khedouri, on the other hand, is directed to “selecting, requesting, downloading, and playing audio” files on a user’s portable audio player device from a content delivery service. Ex. 1011, Abst., ¶ 3. Petitioner identifies (and we perceive) no disclosure in either reference that suggests their combination. See Pet. 53–54. Petitioner incorrectly implies that Khedouri “expands on [Abrams’s] ‘music theme.’” Id. at 53. Abrams states that a user can identify the user’s interests as well as favorite music, books, tv, and movies (Ex. 1009 ¶ 91, Fig. 2), and each of these are stored as a text field in Abrams’s database (id. ¶¶ 89, 91, Fig. 2). This is a passing reference to music, not a music theme. Petitioner also contends that both Abrams and Khedouri teach most limitations of the claim (Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1025, 120–123)), but even if that were true, it does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined them. Second, Petitioner’s assertions that the proposed combination would have been “desirable” and “predictable” are conclusory and entitled to little weight. See Pet. 54. Petitioner relies on Dr. Shamos’s testimony in support, but it similarly fails to provide analysis or evidence to support his conclusions. See Ex. 1025 ¶ 170. Accordingly, we assign little weight to that testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also TQ Delta, 942 F.3d at 1358. a desirable feature” and the combination would provide users “the ability to not only identify and publicize information about their favorite music on their profiles (and learn about others’ favorite music from others’ profiles) but to actually search for that music and be able to listen to it.” Pet. 54 (citing Ex. 1025 ¶ 170). Although this identifies vague benefits of a combination (i.e., sharing information and facilitating access to music), it fails to explain why an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to incorporate these benefits in Abrams’s social network. Petitioner also provides no evidence that an ordinary artisan would have had reasonable expectation of success in making this proposed combination. See id. at 53– 54. Given the specific facts and circumstances of this case, we are concerned that this rationale suffers from improper hindsight bias. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.”); Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“We have observed that the prejudice of hindsight bias often overlooks that the genius of invention is often a combination of known elements which in hindsight seems preordained.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).” slip op. at 24

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,294,430
• Triller, Inc. v. Tiktok Pte. Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2022-00180 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “framework, with the first part being whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (addressing in a two part framework the factors presented in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III(C)(5), first paragraph)). As we discuss below, we are not persuaded that the first part of the framework is met. Patent Owner does not argue that Abrams previously was presented to the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 7 n.3, 25 n.7. And we are not persuaded that Abrams is substantially the same art as Sittig or Reddick simply because Abrams may have one claimed feature in common with Sittig (i.e., “a generic browser”) and a different claimed feature in common with Reddick (i.e., allowing a user to edit, but not create, profiles). Id. Petitioner is relying on Abrams to teach multiple claimed features, and Patent Owner’s § 325(d) arguments address only a subset of those features. Id.” slip op. at 6

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

    “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) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2021). Upon consideration of the papers, we determine that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’322 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or an equivalent discipline, or equivalent experience, including familiarity with multitasking and multithreading, wireless communications and client/server computing, and, in addition, familiarity with digital music distribution and DRM.” Ex. 1025 ¶ 62; Pet. 35. Patent Owner submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Human Factors, or an equivalent degree and at least two years of experience working in the fields of user interfaces, communications applications, networking applications, or media applications, or a person with equivalent education, work, or experience in such fields.” Prelim. Resp. 2. The parties’ dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art does not substantively impact our analysis for purposes of institution. Rather, we find in applying either parties’ definition for what comprises the level of ordinary skill in the art that Petitioner shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving the unpatentability of the challenged claims. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition as it is supported by expert testimony, and Patent Owner’s is not. slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownOther

    “Petitioner does not identify any specific claim term for construction. Pet. 5. Patent Owner submits that the claim term “software application” is defined in the Specification of the ’322 patent. Prelim. Resp. 3. More specifically, Patent Owner submits that the “Definitions” section of the Specification provides the following: “Software Application: The Client software application which is to be delivered over-the-air to, or pre-installed on, the Wireless Computing Device.” See id. (quoting Ex. 1002, 8:63–65). We note that the definition for software application incorporates, based on the capitalization of defined words, the following additional definitions10 from the “Definitions” section of the Specification:” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,992,322
• Triller, Inc. v. Tiktok Pte. Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · May 16, 2022 · IPR2022-00179 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6, 22, 26, 27, and 31 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on the petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “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) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 (2021). Upon consideration of the papers, we determine that the information presented shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’132 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use a two-part framework, with the first part being whether the same or substantially the 4 US 2006/0008256 A1, published Jan. 12, 2006 (Ex. 1011, “Khedouri”). 5 US 8,572,169 B2, issued Oct. 29, 2013 (Ex. 1010, “Partovi”). 6 US 2010/0031366 A1, published Feb. 4, 2010 (Ex. 1012, “Knight”). substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (addressing in a two part framework the factors presented in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to Section III(C)(5), first paragraph)). As we discuss below, we are not persuaded that the first part of the framework is met. Patent Owner does not argue that Abrams previously was presented to the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 7 n.3, 26 n.7. And we are not persuaded that Abrams is substantially the same art as Sittig or Reddick simply because Abrams may have one claimed feature in common with Sittig (i.e., “a generic browser”) and a different claimed feature in common with Reddick (i.e., allowing a user to edit, but not create, profiles). Id. Petitioner is relying on Abrams to teach multiple claimed features, and Patent Owner’s § 325(d) arguments address only a subset of those features. Id. Moreover, as we discuss below, we disagree with Patent Owner that Sittig employing a browser was a reason that particular rejection was overcome. See infra Section IV (addressing Applicant’s remarks to a rejection). Rather, the rejection was overcome for failing to teach a limitation (i.e., that a software application allowed a user, over a wireless connection, to create a user account) that Abrams teaches. See id.; infra Section VI(B)(3) (applying Abrams). Nor do we agree with Patent Owner that Abrams (unlike Reddick) fails to teach allowing a user to create an account. See infra Section VI(B)(3) (applying Abrams). substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 7 n.3, 26 n.7. In light of the above, we find that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not met, and thus, we do not proceed to the second part. See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art does not substantively impact our analysis for purposes of institution. Rather, we find in applying either parties’ definition for what comprises the level of ordinary skill in the art that Petitioner shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving the unpatentability of the challenged claims. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition as it is supported by expert testimony, and Patent Owner’s is not. During trial, and in accordance with our Rules, the parties should address what substantive effect, if any, different proposed definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art have on analyzing what the prior art teaches or in otherwise evaluating unpatentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Pet. 4. Patent Owner submits that the claim term “software application” is defined in the Specification of the ’132 patent. Prelim. Resp. 3. More specifically, Patent Owner submits that the “Definitions” section of the Specification provides the following: “Software Application: The Client software application which is to be delivered over-the-air to, or pre-installed on, the Wireless Computing Device.” See id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 8:61–63). We note that the definition for software application incorporates, based on the capitalization of defined words, the following additional definitions7 from the “Definitions” section of the Specification: (i) “Client: A computing device connected to a network delivering the features and functions of a network-centric application to the user or consumer of the application”; (ii) “Wireless Computing Device: A type of Client which connects to the network via a Wireless Network”; and (iii) “Wireless Network: A network which provides wireless” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,648,132
• Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2022 · IPR2020-00208 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7, and 12–18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Duan under § 102(a)(1).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2-4 years of academic or industry experience in lighting design, including knowledge of LEDs and related technology for driving LEDs. A person of ordinary skill in the art with a higher level of education may have fewer years of academic or industry experience, or vice versa. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 5

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “embodiments that operate with a low frequency driving signal in a double-ended configuration, Patent Owner did not recite “low frequency” or “double-ended” in its claims and instead chose the broader term “first driving mode.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). The fact that a limitation in the specification may define over the prior art does not justify importing that limitation into the claims unless a term is expressly defined such that the patentee becomes his own lexicographer or there is an express disavowal of claim scope. See GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1308–09 (Fed. Cir. 2014). There is no evidence of an express disavowal here. As to lexicography, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification defines the phrase “first driving mode.” Patent Owner relies on the mere fact that the specification describes an embodiment with a first driving mode that has a low frequency driving signal and is in a “double-ended” configuration, but this is not sufficient to define the term. The specification does not require that a low frequency driving signal must necessarily be used. In fact the specification, although not entirely clear, suggests that the driving signal may be from a high frequency ballast. Ex. 1001, 51:8–14. Thus, the fact that the patent here discloses a low frequency driving signal does not mean that all the claims are directed to such a driving signal. See E-Pass Tech., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Indeed, dependent claim 15 recites “the first driving mode is performed when the external driving signal is a relatively low frequency or voltage signal,” while the independent claims were directed to a more general driving signal. The doctrine of claim differentiation suggests that the independent claims here should not include explicit limitations of a dependent claim. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We determine that Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the Chinese priority patent applications it relies on—the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application—provide written description support for the limitation of “a mode determination circuit, configured to generate a first determined result signal based on the external driving signal” and “a mode switching circuit, coupled to the filter circuit and the driving circuit, configured to determine whether to perform a first driving mode or a second driving mode based on the first determined result signal,” recited in claim 1. PO Resp. 31–34, 60–67. Specifically, Patent Owner relies on structures in the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application that are not sufficiently similar to structures in the ’826 patent i.e., DR Circuit 140, excluding diodes D5 and D6, as shown in Figs. 24i-j and 29b. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 2001, 23–24, 29, and 33, Fig. 24i–j and 29b).” slip op. at 11

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

    “For the reasons above, Patent Owner has not established that claim 1 of the ’826 patent is entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application (i.e., June 10, 2015) or the ’586 Application (i.e., March 26, 2015). Because the remaining asserted claims are dependent claims, Patent Owner has also not established that claims 7 and 12–18 of the ’826 patent are entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application or the ’586 Application. The application that led to the ’826 patent was filed on March 25, 2016. The ’826 patent claims it is a continuation-in-part of application No. 15/055,630 (“the ’630 Application”), filed on February 28, 2016. So, even if the challenged claims were entitled to the earlier February 28, 2016 filing date, Duan issued on July 1, 2015, and is, thus, prior art to the challenged claims of the ’826 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,807,826 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,807,826
• Vudu, LLC v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01688 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are unpatentable over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. does it present its own definition. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the specification of the ’830 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” “SegmentBase,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its briefing. We need not construe any claim term to resolve any issues before us, and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. 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 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied

    “not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely because paragraph 253 uses the term “[h]ereinafter” before it discloses “two simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited 8 Ex. 2005 is Application No. 16/168,933 (“the ’933 application”). in limitations [38.6], [40.6], and [46.6]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicates a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. MTA 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 38, 40, and 46 do not find sufficient written description support in the ’644 application nor in the ’933 application, whether considered individually or collectively, and thus, these claims contain new matter.” slip op. at 35

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

    “rationale for combining DIS 23009-1 with M20060, Petitioner persuasively contends that: A POSA would have been motivated to add the additional “metadata” described in M20060 to the MPDs described in the DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 references in order to enable the client to choose the most suitable version of media content among alternative versions of media content. For example, M20060 describes that the additional metadata (e.g., the extended accessibility element and the usedWith, equivalentTo, bitDepth, minBitDepth, and maxBitDepth attributes) helps “both users and clients to select appropriate representations” by, for example, “1) supporting accessibility, 2) describing relationships of representations, and 3) describing media’s bit depth.” Moreover, a POSA would have had an expectation of success in modifying the MPDs in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 to include the additional metadata described below because it simply would have been a matter of adding additional metadata to the MPD XML schemas described in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1. Id. (citing Ex. 1094 ¶ 33; Ex. 1097 § 1, 1). Dr. Bestavros persuasively explains that “M20060 expressly references the DIS 23001-6 reference and proposes specific modifications to the MPEG DASH metadata included in the MPD XML schema.” Ex. 1094 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1097 § 1, 1 (introduction of M20060); Ex. 1097, 7 (references cited by M20060)).” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 10,270,830 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,270,830
• Vudu, Inc. v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01689 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 11, 25, 27, and 29 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend proposing claims 31–35 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor does it present its own definition in any of its briefing. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the Specification of the ’414 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in any of its briefing. 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. 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

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable

    “The newly-cited portion in paragraph 232 does not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited in limitations [31.11], [32.12], and [35.7]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicate a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 31, 32, and 35 do not have sufficient written description support in the ’644 application and the ’092 application, either individually or collectively, and as such, contain new matter.” slip op. at 29

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “are not entitled to a priority date earlier than March 16, 2012 (the filing date of PCT ’922), because the disclosure of KR10-2011-0023271 does not support at least the limitations of: “the adaptation set includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the representations for that adaptation set,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11, and the “SegmentTemplate” recited in independent claims 25. Patent Owner has not asserted, after institution, that the challenged claims are entitled to an earlier date. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (indicating that patent owner bears a burden of production in arguing that the asserted references are not prior art based on entitlement to an earlier priority date). As such and for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has persuasively demonstrated that DIS 23001-6, DIS 23009-1, and 3GPP TS 26.247 qualify as prior art to the challenged claims, because Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that the references were publicly accessible prior to the applicable priority date of March 16, 2012.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,313,414 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,313,414
• ROKU, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · PGR2021-00112 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution

  Instituted PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 lacks written description support; all petition grounds were included.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “content for output.” Id. at 89. We determine, however, that Petitioner’s argument under Step 2A Prong One that claim 1 is directed to the “obtaining content for output” is not substantially different from the Examiner’s determination that claims 1‒20 recite “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Compare Pet. 37–88 (citing e.g. Electric Power), with Ex. 2001, 193–194 (also citing Electric Power). In both cases, the argument is the same or substantially the same, i.e., that similarly identified subject matter of the claim is obtaining (collecting) data and displaying (outputting) it. Nevertheless, as to Step 2A Prong Two, we determine that the claims at issue in the ’096 prosecution differ in material ways from the ’903 patent claims at issue in this PGR. Specifically, the ’096 patent claims recite a touchscreen interface not recited in the ’903 patent claims. Additionally, the ’903 claims focus on the “output device” as performing the patented steps but in the ’096 prosecution history the “‘information apparatus performs the patented steps and “is integral to the claims” (as the Applicant argued). See Ex. 2008 [comparison of ’096 prosecution claims and ’903 claims]; Ex. 2001, 150; see also Pet. 89 (“the claims at issue in the ’067 application were different than the claims of the ’903 patent addressed here.”). rejection and arguments in the ’096 prosecution history turns on whether the claims in this PGR recite different elements that must be determined to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., Prong Two of Step 2A). Petitioner argues that an essential element different than the ’096 claims, i.e. the output device, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims do not amount to an improvement to computer functionality. Pet. 37–72. We find this a close case. Nevertheless, due to the differences in the claims, we determine that the Examiner’s withdrawal of the § 101 rejection in light of the applicant’s arguments regarding the claim being directed to a specific technical solution is not substantially the same argument that Petitioner’s presents in the Petition as to Prong Two of Step 2A.” slip op. at 22

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

    “C. Lack of Written Description Support Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable for lack of written description for the same reasons it contends the ’903 patent is PGR eligible. Pet. 13–36. The Specification of the ’903 patent has substantially the same disclosures as the Specification of the ’413 application relied on by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 20) to which the ’903 patent claims priority. Having determined that the disclosures in the ’903 patent Specification and the ’413 application is insufficient to provide written description support for the at least claim 1, we also determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is unpatentable for the same reasons. Thus, we exercise our discretion and institute post grant review of claims 1–20 challenged under this ground. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1369–60 (2018).” slip op. at 33

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateInstituted

    “in the art at the time of the invention] would have understood that an output system/device could be (or include) an information apparatus. Prelim. Resp. 24. We determine that Patent Owner’s argument has a logical flaw––i.e., the fact that a particular device could be used alternately as an information apparatus or an output device does not necessarily mean that it was known by one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combined information apparatus/output device and have the new combined device perform all the additional functions required by the claims. “The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification.” Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Rivera”). “The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification . . . . It extends only to that which is 1997). Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’413 application teaching that an “output device” can perform the functions of the “information apparatus” including its interactions with the “output device.” For example, claim 1 recites “wirelessly receiving, by the output system . . . output data from at least one server of the one or more servers over the Internet.” Ex. 1001, 37:28–32. At this stage, we find sufficiently persuasive Petitioner’s argument, which we discuss above, that the only written description support for an “output device” that performs the claimed functions by accessing the Internet provided by Patent Owner is not an “output device” but an “information apparatus.” Prelim. Resp. at 27–29.” slip op. at 29

  § 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Mayo · Bilski · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 11,029,903

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.