- PTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01331 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 11–18 based on obviousness over Hardin ’665 and Salmre; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success, including because the claims likely lack the asserted priority date.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’418 patent, namely, claims 11–18, based on the sole ground presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the time of the invention “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a comparable field of study and at least five years of professional experience in mobile or location-based computing or other relevant academic experience.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–41).” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“regarding the state of the art, the more predictable field of mechanical/electrical technologies, and the relatively high level of skill in the art, on the present record, there is a disconnect between what the ’094 application discloses and the specific limitation of the challenged claims at issue, which recites that the application program makes a request to reserve a geographic area of interest. In addition to the ’094 application’s failure to disclose this limitation expressly, the ’094 application fails to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art any hint, suggestion, or indication that Patent Owner possessed an invention in which an application program makes such a request. To the contrary, based on our review of the present record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’094 application consistently and repeatedly discloses that a sponsor makes such a request and does not attribute that action expressly, inherently, or otherwise to any other aspect of the invention. See, e.g., Pet. 13 (identifying several instances where the ’094 application attributes that action to a sponsor).” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“c. Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims Petitioner sets forth a detailed analysis showing how the combined teachings of the references meet the elements of claims 11–18. Pet. 27–69. In particular, Petitioner relies on Hardin ’665 as teaching most of the limitations of the claims, but relies on Salmre to meet the claim limitations reciting application programs on mobile devices that can reserve geographic areas and a content delivery platform that can be implemented on the same mobile device as the application program. Id. at 28. Additionally, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 64–69. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not raise an argument responding to Petitioner’s challenge based on Hardin ’665 and Salmre aside from whether the ’418 patent claims are entitled to the priority date of the ’094 application, an issue we addressed above (see supra Part III.C.). We have reviewed Petitioner’s uncontested argument and evidence regarding the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre, and we find, for the reasons provided by Petitioner and on the preliminary record before us, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combined teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre satisfy the limitations of the claims, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to combine the teachings as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 36
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,779,418 - PTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01327 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–9, 29, and 30 on the § 103 ground over Hardin ’665 and Salmre.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have reviewed Petitioner’s uncontested argument and evidence regarding the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre, and we find, for the reasons provided by Petitioner and on the preliminary record before us, that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combined teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre satisfy the elements of the claims, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to combine the teachings as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Analogous artInstituted
“Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims; Motivation to Modify Petitioner sets forth a detailed analysis showing how the combined teachings of the references meet the elements of claims 1–9, 29, and 30. Pet. 28–63. In particular, Petitioner relies on Hardin ’665 as teaching most of the elements of the claims, but relies, on Salmre to meet the claim elements reciting application programs on mobile devices that can reserve geographic areas and a content delivery platform that can be implemented on the same mobile device as the application program. Id. at 29. Additionally, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 63–69.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims; Motivation to Modify Petitioner sets forth a detailed analysis showing how the combined teachings of the references meet the elements of claims 1–9, 29, and 30. Pet. 28–63. In particular, Petitioner relies on Hardin ’665 as teaching most of the elements of the claims, but relies, on Salmre to meet the claim elements reciting application programs on mobile devices that can reserve geographic areas and a content delivery platform that can be implemented on the same mobile device as the application program. Id. at 29. Additionally, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hardin ’665 and Salmre with a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 63–69.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“Objective Considerations of Nonobviousness Neither party presents evidence of objective considerations of nonobviousness at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,049,387 - Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01256 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–11 based on the § 103 ground over Buhot, GPC, and Zhu, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’724 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., claims 1–11) of the ’724 patent, based on the ground asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only 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 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’724 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1007 (Smith Decl.) ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner states that it “utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art,” but only for its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 9. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’724 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“earlier applications, in particular Application No. 11/534,653 (“the ’653 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2 (“the ’218 patent”). “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, 522 F.3d at 1306; New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 543 F.3d 710, 718 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Patent claims are awarded priority on a claim-by-claim basis based on the disclosure in the priority applications.”). The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under § 112(a) is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlierfiled application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). It is well settled that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571−72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Id. Nor could the claimed subject matter have been “envisioned” from the earlier disclosure to establish written description support. Goeddel v. Sugano, 617 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We agree with Petitioner that, on this record, there does not appear to be support for limitation [1(j)] in the ’653 application. Patent Owner identifies the following disclosure from the ’218 patent (the patent that issued from the ’653 application) as supporting limitation [1(j)]: According to one embodiment, a smart card has a preloaded smart card operation system that provides security framework to control the access to the Smart card (e.g., an installation of external applications into the smart card). In order to manage the life cycle of an external application, a card manager module is configured by using the smart card security framework. For instance, a Java based smart card, SmartMX, is preloaded with an operating system JCOP 4.1. The Global Platform 2.1 installed on the SmartMX performs the card manager functionality. Ex. 2001 (’218 patent), 4:47–56. Patent Owner argues that “this description is substantively identical to that on which Apple relies for disclosure of the “emulator device” and “replace out of the emulator device . . . replacing out of the emulator device . . .” limitations. Prelim. Resp. 26. Patent Owner contends that “Apple relies on Buhot’s discussion of an ‘operating system 314 (running on processor 400) for the ‘emulator device’ limitation (Pet. at 31), and relies on Zhu’s alleged teachings regarding a ‘smart card manager . . . which governs the process of loading and unloading applications out of an emulator’ for the ‘replace out of the emulator device . . . replacing out of the emulator device’ limitations.” Id. (citing Pet. 43). Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner “cannot argue with a straight face that its proposed combination discloses” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,018,724 - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02144 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 11 and 17–19 not shown unpatentable: claim 11 was entitled to priority over the ’918 Publication, and the obviousness challenge to claims 17–19 was unsupported.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently how the ’918 Publication’s disclosure of a “signal . . . of the violation” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 68) also teaches or suggests the additional claim requirements of “the driver interface unit . . . operable to communicate an alarm to the base station of a controller limiting the performance of a driver command” as required by claim 17. Petitioner recognizes the distinction by arguing “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel . . . of any remedial corrective measures taken in response.” Pet. 25 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence cited, the ’918 Publication does not provide any such notification. Petitioner cannot suggest that a reference could have a feature that it does not have without some rational basis as to why such a feature would have been suggested by the reference. Mr. Breen’s explanation mirrors Petitioner’s contention (Ex. 1001 ¶ 277) and likewise states “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel” (emphasis added) but no further explanation is provided as to how this unsupported conclusion was reached. Petitioner has also failed to lay the necessary foundation to establish that “common sense” could fill the gap for the missing limitation, or provide a basis for modifying the ’918 Publication to teach the claim 17 limitation. We recognize that in certain instances “common sense” can be used to supply the missing claim limitation, but only if the art is “unusually simple and the [patented] technology particularly straightforward.” Arendi Sarl v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this proceeding, we have no testimony or evidence to establish either condition is met. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Breen explain adequately why the limitations of claim 17” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,480,569 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,480,569 - Edmit Industries, Inc. v. Smartdoor Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 29, 2016 · IPR2015-00013 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 16–17 are unpatentable over Shea and Burke; claim 18 over Shea, Burke, and O’Brien; and claim 27 over Shea, Burke, and Leivenzon. The motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner disagrees for three reasons. First, Patent Owner implies that Burke is not analogous art because Burke does not disclose a door. See PO Resp. 6. Art is analogous when it is: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, if the art is not from the same field of endeavor. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, as observed by Petitioner’s Declarant, Burke expressly describes an application “as in cases where an electrical braking action is required.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 25 (quoting Ex. 1003, 1:18–22). Thus, even under Patent Owner’s argument that Burke is not specific to the field of doors, we agree with Petitioner’s Declarant that Burke is relevant to the problem of braking in electrified devices. Burke discloses an approach to that problem by absorbing energy from a motor, operated as a generator, for the purpose of braking. Ex. 1003, 1:16–25, 3:11–12.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“brake shoes based on the application of centrifugal force. Ex. 1009, 5:59– 63. Petitioner’s assertion is that a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a different braking mechanism as a substitute for a governor to achieve the same function. In particular, Petitioner proposes substitution of the frictional braking mechanism of Shea (i.e., a braking mechanism that is purely mechanical), with the dissipative braking mechanism of Burke (i.e., a braking mechanism that also converts mechanical energy to electrical energy). In this case, the fire door of Shea, with the motor/generator of Burke substituted for the motor/governor of Shea, would operate to blunt or slow the movement of the door on descent while allowing the door to close. See Ex. 1004 (Haas Decl.) ¶ 26. We determine that the asserted combination of Shea and Burke would operate in the same manner as the fire door of Shea—to slow the movement of the door, while allowing the door to close under the force of gravity. Id. ¶ 24. We agree with Petitioner’s Declarant that this would have been an obvious substitution as the use of a known technique to improve functionality. See id. ¶ 26. Petitioner’s proposed combination is thus the substitution of an electrical component for an analog component, which does not destroy the principle of operation because it does not destroy the overall principle of operation of the device. See Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332. We conclude that this type of fitting together of teachings would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle”). Viewing the evidence as a whole, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the teachings of Burke regarding regenerative braking to the fire door of Shea in order to improve operation of the door and to make use of excess energy from rotation. We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Burke teaches that the braking can have the additional advantage of powering another device and that a person of ordinary skill would have sought a substitution of components in order to achieve the advantages of Burke’s motor/generator. See Pet. Reply 11–12 (quoting Randall Mfg., 733 F.3d at 1363 (“doing so would allow the designer to achieve the other advantages of the Aquino assembly while using a stowage strategy that was very familiar in the industry”)).” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“However, the additional limitations would not avoid unpatentability because Burke and O’Brien both use a motor/generator system, O’Brien’s motor/generator uses DC power (Ex. 1008, 5:15), Burke and O’Brien both use regenerative braking, and Burke recites the charging of a storage battery by the motor/generator which is capable of braking (Ex. 1003, 3:4–16). Therefore, the asserted combination of Shea, Burke, and O’Brien already contains the features recited as additional limitations in proposed substitute claim 40 (and the similar recitations in proposed substitute claims 41 and 42). We have already concluded supra, that the combination of Shea, Burke, and O’Brien would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner does not explain why the additional recitations of its proposed substitute claims would have been nonobvious over this combination. Mot. Amend 4–14. Patent Owner argues that the combination of Shea and Burke would not make use of a DC battery by itself to open or close a door. Id. at 11–12. However, nothing in the additional limitations of proposed substitute claims 40–42 requires that a DC battery provide power to open or close a door without an additional power supply (as discussed above with respect to claim 16). More importantly, the combination of Shea, Burke, and O’Brien would make use of the DC-powered components—the DC motor/generator of O’Brien. Ex. 1008, 5:4–15. Burke discloses using the motor/generator to charge a battery with the regenerated energy. Ex. 1003, 3:12–13. Therefore, the combination of Shea, Burke, and O’Brien already contains the elements of the additional limitations. We conclude that Patent Owner has not met its burden of proving that the additional recitations of proposed substitute claims 40–42 would have been nonobvious over this combination. See Paper 15, 4–16.9” slip op. at 23
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteDecided for patent owner
“As to Petitioner’s argument that proposed substitute claim 43 is indefinite, we determine that the term “substantially uniform speed” is reasonably clear to a person of ordinary skill when read in context of the entire claim limitation and disclosure, which requires the application of “more and more braking” to compensate for the dynamics of the door during closing, e.g., to offset the potential for acceleration due to gravity. Ex. 1001, 12, 19–29; see In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 6,484,784 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,484,784 - Motionpoint Corporation v. Transperfect Global, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 15, 2015 · CBM2014-00060 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable for lack of adequate written description under § 112, first paragraph.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“that “hyperlink” is a well-understood term that the ’022 patent uses in accordance with its ordinary meaning. As explained above, the Microsoft Computer User’s Dictionary makes clear that a hyperlink includes a connection to another element or document. Patent Owner points to no persuasive evidence that the ’022 patent describes a hyperlink as separate from this connection such that the connection can be changed with the hyperlink remaining the same. Indeed, the ’022 patent describes “replac[ing] all links in the translated web page 7 with links that point to the translation manager 4” as part of the translation process. Ex. 1001, 3:37–38. Thus, as described in the patent, changing the connection to point to the translation manager requires a new link. This is consistent with the ordinary meaning of a hyperlink as including a specific connection from one document to another element or document. Our preliminary construction of “hyperlink” included “a link or connection” but did not include a recitation of the element or document linked. To resolve the parties’ dispute, consistent with the ordinary meaning and the specification, we conclude, on the full record before us, that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood “hyperlink” to mean “a connection between an element in a hypertext document, such as a word, phrase, symbol, or image, and a different element in the document, another hypertext document, a file, or a script.”” slip op. at 10
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“First, the inter partes reexamination of the ’022 patent is relevant to our consideration of the claim construction issues presented here because claim construction was at issue in the reexamination. Second, we see no risk of undue prejudice that would outweigh the probative value of the documents and evidence submitted in the reexamination. Of note, is that this proceeding is not a jury trial and, thus, the risk of prejudice in this forum is less than what may otherwise exist before a jury. Third, we agree with Petitioner that Exhibit 1013 is not hearsay at least under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B) because the testimony in Dr. Nakhimovsky’s Declaration was submitted by, and on behalf of, Patent Owner to the Patent Office, thus evidencing that Patent Owner manifested a belief that the statements contained therein were true. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as applied to Exhibit 1013 is denied.” slip op. at 22
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s first argument is contrary to our constructions of the term “hyperlink” and the phrase “said hyperlink.” As reflected in our construction, “said hyperlink” in each of independent claims 1, 17, and 26, refers back to the original recitation of “one or more hyperlinks” in the original (untranslated) electronic communication. The portion of the specification relied upon by Patent Owner does not disclose providing translation of said further electronic communications when the original one or more hyperlink is activated. Rather, this disclosure indicates that the translation manager may replace all of the links (i.e., hyperlinks) in the translated web page with links that point to the translation manager. These replaced links are in the translated electronic communication (e.g., web page 7), and not in the original untranslated electronic communication (e.g., web page 2). Thus, this disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of a translation manager that provides translation of further electronic communications when the one or more hyperlinks in the original untranslated electronic communication is activated (i.e., one or more hyperlinks with unmodified destination addresses). See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 25
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not reached
“E. Indefiniteness of Claims 23 and 25–28 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph Our determination that each challenged claim is unpatentable for lack of an adequate written description renders it unnecessary to reach Petitioner’s contentions that claims 23 and 25–28 of the ’022 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 6,857,022 unpatentableClaim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,857,022
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.