• Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00775 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable, including over Carmel and Mattavelli.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “1. Principles of Law A claim is unpatentable under § 103 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 said subject matter pertains.” 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, including (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 skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others, etc.).5 Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds based on obviousness with the principles we identify above in mind.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case.” Id. at 696–97. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Polish, Google argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field requiring learning computation principles, and two years of work experience in networking or streaming media systems, particularly audio and video, over the Internet. Additional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In the Petition, Google states that it “does not presently contend that any [claim] term requires express construction.” Pet. 6. In response, Withrow acquiesces; in particular, Withrow argues “the Board need not construe any terms of the ’849 Patent. Petitioner does not contend any [claim] terms require express construction.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 6). Based on the preliminary record, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms at this time. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe 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 8

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

    “Turning to rationale to combine, Google contends that Carmel and Mattavelli are both directed to processing multimedia data playback “for the appreciation of a user,” while providing the highest perceived audio and video output quality possible in view of system constraints to ensure playback continuity. Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:48–54, 11:9–18, 7:35– 49, Figs. 3D, 6B; Ex. 1004, 2309, 2310). Google argues that both Carmel and Mattavelli pertain to compression of multimedia data using well-known coding and compression standards for video streaming. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:25–26, 11:24–52; Ex. 1004, 2309–2311). Google argues a PHOSITA would appreciate both Carmel and Mattavelli complement each other because Carmel pertains to addressing constraints to available network bandwidth, whereas Mattavalli relates to addressing limits on available processing resources at the client/multimedia player. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003, Abstract, 7:36–41; Ex. 1004, 2309–2312). Google argues that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings in Carmel and Mattavelli to create a more robust streaming system that addresses both bandwidth constraints and client processing limits to provide a best possible playback experience. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 212–215). Google argues that Mattavelli teaches merely optimizing transmission bandwidth is not sufficient and is potentially harmful, which provides an express motivation to combine Carmel’s and Mattavelli’s complementary teachings to ensure that different, related links in the streaming playback chain are optimized together. Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 216–217; Ex. 1004, 2310). In addition, Google argues Carmel contains an express disclosure that would have motivated a PHOSITA to combine Carmel with Mattavelli’s complementary teachings because Carmel states that multimedia playback is achieved “preferably with only a minimal necessary transmission and decoding delay.” Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 218; Ex. 1003, 10:50–54). Withrow does not specifically respond to these arguments, except for limitations 1[c.ii] and 1[c.iv] discussed infra. See generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, the burden of persuasion remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Based on the preliminary record, we discern no deficiency in Google’s characterizations of Carmel, Mattavelli, or the general background knowledge in the art. In addition, for purposes of institution, we are persuaded by Dr. Polish’s testimony concerning the relevant disclosures in Carmel and Mattavelli.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,771,849
• Microsoft Corporation v. Partec AGInstituted
  PTAB · Jul 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00318 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, finding a reasonable likelihood that Lippert and Budenske render the challenged claims obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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(a). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner states that for purposes of the Preliminary Response it has applied Petitioner’s recitation of the level of skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent Owner has not proposed its own articulation of the level of ordinary skill. We adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art. It is supported by the testimony of Dr. Long and not disputed by Patent Owner. Further, it appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). B.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Regarding motivation to combine, Petitioner explains: A POSITA would have been motivated to implement the heterogeneous computing system of Lippert with the dynamic iterative sub-tasks assignment method of Budenske partly because doing so would facilitate efficient distributions of subtasks and processing resources during execution of an iterative application, thus fully leveraging the flexibility of the heterogeneous architecture and “reduc[ing] execution time” of computing iterations. EX1005, 391; EX1003, ¶59. Pet. 17. Petitioner further explains: Second, Budenske provides express motivation from implementing its method in a heterogeneous computing system such as Lippert, namely to “fully utilize the architectural flexibility of such a [heterogeneous parallel computing] system.” EX1005, 390. A POSITA would have found that the dynamic flexibility of the heterogeneous computing system taught by Lippert through the “loose coupling” of computation nodes and boosters (EX1004, [0013], [0015] (describing “a maximum flexibility in providing hardware resources”)), naturally complements the dynamic flexibility of remapping sub-tasks among processing resources to account for the actual processing of the sub-tasks by the processing resources during preceding iterations, as taught by Budenske (EX1005, 391), and that the combination for these teachings would provide increased flexibility for optimally processing iterative applications. EX1003, ¶60.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “teaching away” argument: “As discussed above, Budenske actually teaches away from distributing subtasks between processor types, noting that for its teachings to work all processors utilized for a given task must be of the same type. EX1005 at 392; Section VI.A.1.” Prelim. Resp. 23. We already discussed and rejected above Patent Owner’s contention that Budenske describes its teachings would work only if all processors utilized for a given task are of the same type. Thus, the “teaching away” argument also lacks merit. Alternatively, Patent Owner asserts that even if we reject Patent Owner’s “teaching away” argument, “Budenske’s teachings would have strongly weighed against motivating a skilled artisan to develop a system according to the ‘442 Patent claims.” Prelim. Resp. 23–24. We disagree. As discussed above, Budenske acknowledged that its resource mapping method would be more easily accomplished if all the processors were of the same type. It nowhere indicates, as Patent Owner argues, that the method would work only if all the processors were of the same type. slip op. at 24

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,537,442
• K/S Himpp v. III Holdings 4, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00496 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Topholm and Michael because the cited art did not teach adjusting a hearing aid profile.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “The problem we find with this position is that the Petitioner is reading claim elements into the description of these references. Patent Owner points out that the profiles are not being adjusted, but rather being selected from twenty-four previously stored profiles. Resp. 30–31. While the ear module operational profile changes, we observe that this is because it is using a different profile, which was just uploaded from the control unit. The act of moving the finger around on the screen to us perhaps appears to change the profile, when it is in fact moving through a set of preexisting profiles and uploading them to the hearing aid instead, changing operation of the hearing aid itself but not adjusting the profile itself. Michael states: This permits the user to select a hearing profile by simply moving visual indicator 924 over main region 922 while listening to a sound stream broadcast by ear 35 module 10; the sound stream being heard by the user reflects the hearing profile corresponding to the current position of the visual indicator 924 in real-time. Ex. 1005, 8:32–37.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “4 Petitioner also relies upon the declaration testimony of Dr. Robert E. Morley, Jr. (Ex. 1002). Both references appear to be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We find Dr. Morley, by virtue of his education and experience, qualified to testify to the subject matter of this proceeding. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–14 and Exhibit A thereto. We are cognizant of Patent Owner’s suggestion that we give his testimony “little, if any, weight” because of the similarity of the testimony with Petitioner’s arguments and discrepancies between it and his deposition testimony. PO Resp. 34–36. We give Dr. Morley’s testimony appropriate contextual weight herein based upon the content of the testimony itself, and any contrary testimony in Exhibit 2006. We decline to assign generally no weight to his testimony, however.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “These underlying factual considerations consist of: (1) the “level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art,”5 (2) the “scope and content of the prior art,” (3) the “differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,” and (4) “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness such as “commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.”6 KSR, 550 U.S. at 406 (quoting Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18). 5 Petitioner defines the level of ordinary skill in the art as someone with a B.S. degree in electrical or computer engineering, or the equivalent, and at least two years of experience in the design of audiological products. Pet. 7-8 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not challenge this level. PO Resp., passim. The references in the record tend to support a finding that this is the appropriate level.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,761,421 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,761,421
• K/S Himpp v. III Holdings 4, LLCOther
  PTAB · Jun 28, 2018 · IPR2017-00414 · APJ James T Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over either Cohen and Martin or Holmes and Martin because the combinations did not establish the claimed separate shaping before mixing.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “As used herein, the term “hearing aid profile” refers to a collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid 102, which are used by a processor 110 to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for the user's hearing loss. Ex. 1001, 3:11–15. Petitioner states that Patent Owner defined this term in the ’538 patent as “a collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid 102, which are used by processor 110 to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for the user’s hearing loss.” Pet. 15. According to Petitioner, this construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, relying upon the testimony of its witness Dr. Les Atlas. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38).10 Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. Resp. 10–11. 10 Dr. Les Atlas is the Petitioner’s witness in this matter. We find him qualified to testify as to the subject matter of this proceeding, by virtue of his education and experience. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 4, and Appendix A thereto. We are cognizant of Patent Owner’s suggestion that we give his testimony “little, if any, weight” because of the similarity of the testimony with Petitioner’s arguments and discrepancies between it and his deposition testimony. Resp. 31–34. We give Dr. Atlas’ testimony appropriate contextual weight herein based upon the content of the testimony itself, and any contrary testimony in Exhibit 2005. We decline to assign generally no weight to his testimony, however. supports, and is consistent with, Petitioner’s proposal. Ex. 1001, 3:12–16. Accordingly, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the specification of the ’538 patent, of the term “hearing aid profile” is a “collection of acoustic configuration settings for hearing aid, which are used by a processor to shape electrical signals related to sounds to compensate for a user’s hearing loss.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “For the purposes of our decision, we determine that no other claim terms need explicit construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (citation omitted).” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “11 Petitioner defines the level of ordinary skill in the art as someone with a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and at least two years of experience in the field of audio engineering. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 25). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition. Resp. passim. The references in the record support a finding that this is the appropriate level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of skill in the art). 12 The record contains no allegations or evidence of secondary considerations.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “We find the testimony of Dr. Atlas on the key point of obviousness of pre-mixing processing to be less persuasive than that of Mr. Brown. We also find Dr. Atlas’ testimony falls short of adequately explaining how the combination of Cohen and Martin teaches a nexus (i.e., the “based on both the first [shaped] output signal and the second [shaped] output signal” (emphasis added) (hereinafter, “based on both limitation”) limitation recited in claim 1) between the claim 1 requirements of: (1) a condition precedent of shaping both a first output signal and a second output signal; and (2) a subsequent result of using both the first shaped output signal and the second shaped output signal if the hearing aid is in a third mode. Dr. Atlas assumes that one of ordinary skill in the art would process separately each signal and then mix them. Ex. 1003 ¶ 66. We find Dr. Atlas’ assumption is flawed. Specifically, in making this assumption, Dr. Atlas does not address adequately how the combination of Cohen and Martin opines “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art” (emphasis added), his later sentences appears to base his opinion principally on the reason one of ordinary skill in the art could do it. Id. In particular, he testifies: Because Cohen’s hearing aid applies different hearing aid profiles to different input sources, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to add the functionality of the combination mode as taught by Martin to Cohen’s hearing aid such that the speaker would produce an audible sound based on the output signals of the processor. Combining two signals such that both signals are sent to a speaker to an audible combination of sounds, that is where each signal is sufficiently perceived, was well within the technical ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art. To accomplish this would require that each one of the two signals is passed through an appropriate hearing aid profile. For example, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a different hearing aid profiles could be used for an audio coil inputs and that of a neighboring conversation and environmental sounds through a microphone. Namely, it is commonly known that the different frequency sensitivity of an audio telecoil versus a microphone can be beneficially compensated for. (Rodriquez, Ex. 1011, Abstract)” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,649,538
• Dell Inc. / EMC Corporation et al. v. Realtime Data LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2018 · IPR2017-01690 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioners failed to prove claims 1–10, 15, 20, and 24 unpatentable because they did not show a reason to refrain from calculating Hsu’s metrics when Franaszek’s type information was absent.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “and “at least two years of experience working with data compression or a graduate degree focusing in the field of data compression.” ’179 IPR, Ex. 1002 ¶ 26; ’808 IPR, Ex. 1002 ¶ 26. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Zeger, “does not disagree” with Petitioners’ formulation, and does not offer any alternative formulation. See Ex. 2004 ¶ 20. Based on our review of the ’728 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’728 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioners’ declarant, we adopt and apply Dr. Creusere’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. The cited prior art references also reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We find that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references is consistent with Dr. Creusere’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioners requested that we construe the claim term “the data block being included in one or more data blocks,” which is recited in claims 2 and 3. ’179 Pet. 13, ’808 Pet. 11–12. Patent Owner did not request that we provide explicit constructions of any claim terms. On this record, we determine that it is unnecessary to provide an explicit construction of the claim term “the data block being included in one or more data blocks” in order to resolve the issues in dispute. Accordingly, we decline to adopt an express construction of this claim term. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioners argue that Patent Owner is “presuppos[ing] that a POSA would only see one obvious way to combine prior art teachings.” Reply 5. Petitioners are correct that there may be more than one obvious way to combine prior art teachings. However, it is Petitioners’ burden to show that one particular combination of the references renders obvious all limitations of a given claim. Thus, it is entirely proper for Patent Owner to point out the tension between Petitioners’ stated rationale for combining the teachings of Hsu and Franaszek to arrive at limitations 1d and 24d, and Petitioners’ stated rationale for further modifying this combination to refrain from calculating Hsu’s block type and redundancy metrics when Franaszek’s type information is not present in order to arrive at limitations 1f and 24f. To prevail on Ground 1, Petitioners must demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient reason to make both modifications. We find Petitioner has not persuasively harmonized the disparate rationales it proffers.” slip op. at 29

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Notably, Dr. Creusere never opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to refrain from calculating Hsu’s block type and redundancy metrics when Franaszek’s type data was not present, in the manner Petitioners allege would have satisfied claim limitations 1f and 24f. See ’179 IPR, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 141–146, 191–202; ’808 IPR, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 141– 146, 191–202. In fact, during his deposition, Dr. Creusere confirmed that he was not offering an opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have refrained from calculating Hsu’s block type and redundancy metrics when Franaszek’s “type” information was not present: Q. And in your declaration, you don't propose that a POSA would only use Hsu when Franaszek already has a data type and not use Hsu when Franaszek doesn't have a data type, right? A. I don't propose that a POSA has to do that. Though I do discuss the advantages that one could achieve if one had a data type, and one were to combine that with Hsu, but I don't say -- I don't say that you can only apply Hsu when you -- when you have a data type. Q. You don't have an opinion that a POSA would have been motivated to use Hsu only when Franaszek has a data type, but would not have been motivated to use Hsu when Franaszek doesn't have a data type, right? A. I don't believe that I expressed an opinion on that in my declaration. Ex. 2003, 130:18–131:12 (emphases added).” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,054,728 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,054,728
• Dell Inc. / EMC Corporation et al. v. Realtime Data LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00808 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 15, 20, and 24 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioners did not establish a reason to forgo Hsu’s analysis when Franaszek lacked type information.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “In contrast, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Zeger, directly addresses the issue in dispute, and testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had reason to refrain from calculating Hsu’s block type and redundancy metrics when Franaszek’s type data was not present: While I do not agree that a POSA would be motivated to combine Franaszek with Hsu at all, I do agree with Dr. Creusere that if a POSA were to make such a combination, the POSA would rely on Hsu’s powerful data type recognition and compressibility analysis approach to identify a data type and redundancy metrics for each of Franaszek’s data blocks. I also agree with Dr. Creusere’s testimony that using Hsu in such circumstances would help Franaszek “pick a better compression technique and get more compression.” Id. at 130:12-17. I certainly do not believe that a POSA would want to refrain from using Hsu’s powerful data type recognition and compressibility analysis approach when Franaszek lacks data type information. To the contrary, Hsu describes a system that avoids any content independent compression and that instead uses an entirely content-dependent approach, and its teachings are thus heavily directed toward an approach for always identifying a data block’s data type as well as its three redundancy metrics. Thus a POSA would have to disregard a core aspect of Hsu’s teachings in order not to use Hsu when Franaszek lacks a data type. I agree with Dr. Creusere that a POSA would not take such an approach. It would certainly not be obvious for a POSA to do so. Ex. 2004 ¶ 24. We find Dr. Zeger’s testimony persuasive, especially in view of Dr. Creusere’s deposition testimony that advantages would result from using Hsu’s block type and redundancy metrics, regardless of whether Franaszek’s type data was or was not present.” slip op. at 27

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “and “at least two years of experience working with data compression or a graduate degree focusing in the field of data compression.” ’179 IPR, Ex. 1002 ¶ 26; ’808 IPR, Ex. 1002 ¶ 26. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Zeger, “does not disagree” with Petitioners’ formulation, and does not offer any alternative formulation. See Ex. 2004 ¶ 20. Based on our review of the ’728 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’728 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioners’ declarant, we adopt and apply Dr. Creusere’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. The cited prior art references also reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We find that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references is consistent with Dr. Creusere’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioners requested that we construe the claim term “the data block being included in one or more data blocks,” which is recited in claims 2 and 3. ’179 Pet. 13, ’808 Pet. 11–12. Patent Owner did not request that we provide explicit constructions of any claim terms. On this record, we determine that it is unnecessary to provide an explicit construction of the claim term “the data block being included in one or more data blocks” in order to resolve the issues in dispute. Accordingly, we decline to adopt an express construction of this claim term. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioners argue that Patent Owner is “presuppos[ing] that a POSA would only see one obvious way to combine prior art teachings.” Reply 5. Petitioners are correct that there may be more than one obvious way to combine prior art teachings. However, it is Petitioners’ burden to show that one particular combination of the references renders obvious all limitations of a given claim. Thus, it is entirely proper for Patent Owner to point out the tension between Petitioners’ stated rationale for combining the teachings of Hsu and Franaszek to arrive at limitations 1d and 24d, and Petitioners’ stated rationale for further modifying this combination to refrain from calculating Hsu’s block type and redundancy metrics when Franaszek’s type information is not present in order to arrive at limitations 1f and 24f. To prevail on Ground 1, Petitioners must demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient reason to make both modifications. We find Petitioner has not persuasively harmonized the disparate rationales it proffers.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 9,054,728 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,054,728
• Dell Inc. / EMC Corporation et al. v. Realtime Data LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00179 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 15, 20, and 24 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioners did not establish a reason to refrain from calculating Hsu’s metrics when Franaszek’s type information was absent.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “and “at least two years of experience working with data compression or a graduate degree focusing in the field of data compression.” ’179 IPR, Ex. 1002 ¶ 26; ’808 IPR, Ex. 1002 ¶ 26. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Zeger, “does not disagree” with Petitioners’ formulation, and does not offer any alternative formulation. See Ex. 2004 ¶ 20. Based on our review of the ’728 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’728 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioners’ declarant, we adopt and apply Dr. Creusere’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. The cited prior art references also reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We find that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references is consistent with Dr. Creusere’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioners requested that we construe the claim term “the data block being included in one or more data blocks,” which is recited in claims 2 and 3. ’179 Pet. 13, ’808 Pet. 11–12. Patent Owner did not request that we provide explicit constructions of any claim terms. On this record, we determine that it is unnecessary to provide an explicit construction of the claim term “the data block being included in one or more data blocks” in order to resolve the issues in dispute. Accordingly, we decline to adopt an express construction of this claim term. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 2004 ¶ 24. We find Dr. Zeger’s testimony persuasive, especially in view of Dr. Creusere’s deposition testimony that advantages would result from using Hsu’s block type and redundancy metrics, regardless of whether Franaszek’s type data was or was not present.” slip op. at 28

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

    “Petitioners argue that Patent Owner is “presuppos[ing] that a POSA would only see one obvious way to combine prior art teachings.” Reply 5. Petitioners are correct that there may be more than one obvious way to combine prior art teachings. However, it is Petitioners’ burden to show that one particular combination of the references renders obvious all limitations of a given claim. Thus, it is entirely proper for Patent Owner to point out the tension between Petitioners’ stated rationale for combining the teachings of Hsu and Franaszek to arrive at limitations 1d and 24d, and Petitioners’ stated rationale for further modifying this combination to refrain from calculating Hsu’s block type and redundancy metrics when Franaszek’s type information is not present in order to arrive at limitations 1f and 24f. To prevail on Ground 1, Petitioners must demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient reason to make both modifications. We find Petitioner has not persuasively harmonized the disparate rationales it proffers.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 9,054,728 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,054,728
• Dell Inc. / EMC Corporation et al. v. Realtime Data LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2018 · IPR2017-01688 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 104 and 105 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over Franaszek and Hsu, and over Franaszek, Hsu, and Sebastian, because the combinations render the claims obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “present case for at least the reasons stated supra in § II.C.1., we construe claims 104 and 105 according to the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification (i.e., using Schulhauser) as explained infra. In Schulhauser, the Board held that in method claim 1, only one of the following conditional limitations needed to be satisfied in the prior art to render the claim anticipated or obvious: (1) “triggering an alarm state if the electro cardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria”; and (2) “determining the current activity level of the subject from the activity level data if the electrocardiac signal data is within the threshold electrocardiac criteria.” Schulhauser at 6–8. To paraphrase, in Schulhauser, illustrative method claim 1 recited if A, then perform step X; if not A, then perform step Y. Id. In the same manner, claim 104 of the present case recites “performing content dependent data compression with a content dependent data compression encoder if a data type of the data block is identified” (hereinafter, “if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 104”) and “performing data compression with a single data compression encoder, if a data type of the data block is not identified” (hereinafter, “if not A, then perform step Y limitation of claim 104”). Ex. 1001, 2:34–45. Also, claim 105 recites “wherein if one or more encoders are associated to said type, compressing said data block with at least one of said one or more encoders” (hereinafter, “if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 105”) and “otherwise compressing said data block with a default data compression encoder” (hereinafter, “if not A, then perform step Y limitation of claim 105”). Id. at 2:57–60. Therefore, as a matter of law, we determine only one condition needs to be satisfied in the prior art to render the claim anticipated or obvious.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsOther

    “Schulhauser was only raised by Petitioner after the time to bring a motion to amend had passed. PO Br. 2–3. To the extent that Patent Owner is suggesting that it was deprived of the opportunity to file a motion to amend, we disagree because Patent Owner should have been aware of Schulhauser since at least the filing of Petitioner’s Reply (i.e., December 5, 2017). Yet, Patent Owner’s additional briefing filed on March 5, 2018 was the first and only time Patent Owner made reference to a motion to amend. PO Br. 2–3. Although the time to file a motion to amend, under the Scheduling Order, had passed when Petitioner filed its Reply, Patent Owner was free to seek leave to file a late motion to amend. However, Patent Owner did not contact the Board on this issue.11 We, therefore, find that it is appropriate to apply Schulhauser in the context of this proceeding for at least the reasons explained supra.12” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s Declarant Dr. Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D., does not disagree with Petitioner’s statements regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2005 ¶ 20. Based on our review of the ’506 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’506 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Creusere and Dr. Zeger, we adopt and apply Dr. Creusere’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “always perform the if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 104. In addition, Dr. Zeger’s opinion that the Franaszek and Hsu combination fails applies only to the if not A, then perform step Y limitation of claim 104. Dr. Zeger’s opinion that the combination fails was given in the context of his opinion that both the if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 104 and the if not A, then perform step Y limitation of claim 104, must be taught in order to demonstrate unpatentability. It is noted that claim 104 is a method claim being analyzed under Schulhauser16; therefore, it is sufficient for Petitioner to show that the combination of Franaszek and Hsu teaches either the if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 104 or the if not A, then perform step Y limitation of claim 104. We find Dr. Zeger’s testimony regarding the absence of a rationale to combine to be unpersuasive because it was based on the assumption that both alternate steps of claim 104 must be met. We, therefore, also find that Dr. Zeger’s testimony does not counter persuasively Petitioner’s showing that a PHOSITA would have had reason to combine Franaszek and Hsu in a manner that would have taught the if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 104. Accordingly, we are persuaded Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) Franaszek and Hsu teaches the if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 104; and (2) a PHOSITA would have combined Franaszek and Hsu.17 Petitioner has made sufficient” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 7,161,506 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,161,506
• Dell Inc. / EMC Corporation et al. v. Realtime Data LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00806 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 104 and 105 are unpatentable as obvious over Franaszek and Hsu, and over Franaszek, Hsu, and Sebastian.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “present case for at least the reasons stated supra in § II.C.1., we construe claims 104 and 105 according to the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification (i.e., using Schulhauser) as explained infra. In Schulhauser, the Board held that in method claim 1, only one of the following conditional limitations needed to be satisfied in the prior art to render the claim anticipated or obvious: (1) “triggering an alarm state if the electro cardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria”; and (2) “determining the current activity level of the subject from the activity level data if the electrocardiac signal data is within the threshold electrocardiac criteria.” Schulhauser at 6–8. To paraphrase, in Schulhauser, illustrative method claim 1 recited if A, then perform step X; if not A, then perform step Y. Id. In the same manner, claim 104 of the present case recites “performing content dependent data compression with a content dependent data compression encoder if a data type of the data block is identified” (hereinafter, “if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 104”) and “performing data compression with a single data compression encoder, if a data type of the data block is not identified” (hereinafter, “if not A, then perform step Y limitation of claim 104”). Ex. 1001, 2:34–45. Also, claim 105 recites “wherein if one or more encoders are associated to said type, compressing said data block with at least one of said one or more encoders” (hereinafter, “if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 105”) and “otherwise compressing said data block with a default data compression encoder” (hereinafter, “if not A, then perform step Y limitation of claim 105”). Id. at 2:57–60. Therefore, as a matter of law, we determine only one condition needs to be satisfied in the prior art to render the claim anticipated or obvious.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotation and citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Creusere, testifies that a person with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “using Hsu’s approach will always identify a result for a block’s data type (id.); we agree with Dr. Creusere’s testimonial admission. In particular, in response to Patent Owner’s question of whether Hsu’s approach always identifies a given data block, Dr. Creusere answered: As far as the – as the data type information as output by Hsu’s new file routine, that, that’s – that will – that should in my, in my opinion, as a person of ordinary skill in the art, my best estimate is that will always output something. It will always give you something. Id. (quoting Ex. 2003, 21:13–22:6).” slip op. at 34

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

    “combine to be unpersuasive because it was based on the assumption that both alternate steps of claim 104 must be met. We, therefore, also find that Dr. Zeger’s testimony does not counter persuasively Petitioner’s showing that a PHOSITA would have had reason to combine Franaszek and Hsu in a manner that would have taught the if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 104. Accordingly, we are persuaded Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) Franaszek and Hsu teaches the if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 104; and (2) a PHOSITA would have combined Franaszek and Hsu.17 Petitioner has made sufficient” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 7,161,506 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,161,506
• Dell Inc. / EMC Corporation et al. v. Realtime Data LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00176 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 104 and 105 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a) over Franaszek and Hsu, and over Franaszek, Hsu, and Sebastian.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “present case for at least the reasons stated supra in § II.C.1., we construe claims 104 and 105 according to the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification (i.e., using Schulhauser) as explained infra. In Schulhauser, the Board held that in method claim 1, only one of the following conditional limitations needed to be satisfied in the prior art to render the claim anticipated or obvious: (1) “triggering an alarm state if the electro cardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria”; and (2) “determining the current activity level of the subject from the activity level data if the electrocardiac signal data is within the threshold electrocardiac criteria.” Schulhauser at 6–8. To paraphrase, in Schulhauser, illustrative method claim 1 recited if A, then perform step X; if not A, then perform step Y. Id. In the same manner, claim 104 of the present case recites “performing content dependent data compression with a content dependent data compression encoder if a data type of the data block is identified” (hereinafter, “if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 104”) and “performing data compression with a single data compression encoder, if a data type of the data block is not identified” (hereinafter, “if not A, then perform step Y limitation of claim 104”). Ex. 1001, 2:34–45. Also, claim 105 recites “wherein if one or more encoders are associated to said type, compressing said data block with at least one of said one or more encoders” (hereinafter, “if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 105”) and “otherwise compressing said data block with a default data compression encoder” (hereinafter, “if not A, then perform step Y limitation of claim 105”). Id. at 2:57–60. Therefore, as a matter of law, we determine only one condition needs to be satisfied in the prior art to render the claim anticipated or obvious.” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for patent owner

    “As an initial matter, as discussed further below, we follow Schulhauser because it is precedential. Moreover, we find that each of the cases cited by Patent Owner is factually distinguishable from Schulhauser. The Board’s Standard Operating Procedures (“SOP”) require it to follow its precedential decisions. PTAB SOP No. 2, Rev. 9, 3 (Sept. 22, 2014) (“A precedential opinion is binding authority in subsequent matters involving similar facts or issues.”). Because this issue concerns claim construction, we conclude the best course of action under these specific circumstances is to follow our Tribunal’s SOP and our precedent in Schulhauser. To address APA concerns, due process concerns, the sufficiency of notice and potential prejudice, we allowed the parties the additional opportunity to brief the issue.10 Additional Briefing 1–2. In summary, Schulhauser is our precedent and it should apply given its potential applicability to the claim construction for the claims at issue.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We find Dr. Zeger’s testimony regarding the absence of a rationale to combine to be unpersuasive because it was based on the assumption that both alternate steps of claim 104 must be met. We, therefore, also find that Dr. Zeger’s testimony does not counter persuasively Petitioner’s showing that a PHOSITA would have had reason to combine Franaszek and Hsu in a manner that would have taught the if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 104. Accordingly, we are persuaded Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) Franaszek and Hsu teaches the if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 104; and (2) a PHOSITA would have combined Franaszek and Hsu.17 Petitioner has made sufficient” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Accordingly, we are persuaded Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) Franaszek and Hsu teaches the if A, then perform step X limitation of claim 104; and (2) a PHOSITA would have combined Franaszek and Hsu.17 Petitioner has made sufficient 16 Supra § II.C. 17 We considered Patent Owner’s objections (Tr. 30:1–34:4, 63:17–23) and dismiss them as moot because we did not rely on Petitioner’s theory that Franaszek does not have a data type, then if you were to use Hsu in that showings that both grounds would have taught the remaining limitations of claim 104 (Pet. 14–36) and Patent Owner does not dispute these assertions (Paper 20, § B.1.b.) (“[A]ny arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”). e. Conclusion In conclusion, and having performed the factual inquiries required by Graham, for the reasons given above and based on our review of the arguments and evidence of record, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of: (1) Franaszek and Hsu; and (2) Franaszek, Hsu, and Sebastian render obvious the subject matter of claim 104 of the ’506 patent.18” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 7,161,506 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,161,506

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.