• Kiosoft Technologies, LLC / Techtrex, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2021 · PGR2021-00093 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–25 on all petition grounds after finding the § 101 challenge to claim 1 met the institution threshold.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “Fintiv sets forth the factors that we weigh in determining whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution of the post-grant patent review proceeding here under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). See Fintiv, Paper 11, 5–6. These factors are: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. “[T]he Board takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Because the claims at issue here, in particular claim 1, differ from the March 2015 amended claims of the ’859 patent and the August 2014 amended claims of the ’296 patent (see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 46:59–47:34), we are not persuaded that the cited prosecution history equally applies to the claims here. In particular, we note that claim 1, which we discuss in the analysis below, does not recite a first transceiver corresponding to a short-range communication mode and a second transceiver corresponding to a long-range communication mode, and does not specify whether a first or second transceiver perform certain actions recited in the claim. Id. As Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 19), claim 1 of the ’614 patent more but claim 1 does not specify whether it is long or short range and merely recites it being used to establish a connection for the exchange of information between a mobile device and a payment accepting unit in some of the claimed steps. Id. Thus, considering Becton, Dickinson factors (a) and (d), we are not persuaded that the same or substantially the same arguments concerning § 101 were previously presented to the Office. Because we determine that the same or substantially the same arguments with respect to § 101 were not previously presented to the Office, we need not address part two of the Advanced Bionics framework with respect to those arguments.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A [person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)] would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a related/equivalent field and at least 3 years of academic or industry experience in electronic payment systems. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–6). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill to determine whether it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. This level of skill in the art is consistent with the disclosure of the ’614 patent and the prior art of record. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 22

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionInstituted

    “Ex. 1001, 46:61–47:34. Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the limitations above recite the concept of identifying a merchant and making a purchase from the merchant. In particular, claim 1 recites steps for identifying payment accepting units (i.e., a merchant) — limitations 1.2– 1.7.1. Claim 1 also recites steps for conducting the purchase —limitations 1.7.2–1.11. Based on the current record, we find that identifying a merchant and making a purchase from the merchant is a commercial interaction, a sales activity. It falls within the enumerated “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).” slip op. at 28

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · Phillips · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,891,614
• Kiosoft Technologies, LLC / Techtrex, Inc. v. Payrange Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2021 · PGR2021-00084 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that any of claims 1–20 was more likely than not unpatentable on the asserted § 112, § 102, or § 103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”1 After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur- reply and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments because Petitioner’s proposed construction improperly attempts to read a particular embodiment described in the ’608 patent into the claims. It is not proper to read limitations from the ’608 patent into the claims: Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, [the Federal Circuit has] repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. As Mr. Smith points out, the ’608 patent does describe offline- payment operated machine 1500 as an electro-mechanical machine capable of accepting currency (e.g., coins), which is not connected to any networks (e.g., telephone, cellular, or Wi-Fi). Ex. 1005 ¶ 84 (citing Ex. 1002, 39:39– 45). But, the ’608 patent describes offline-payment operated machine 1500 as merely one example of an offline-payment operated machine in some implementations. The ’608 patent states: FIG. 28A illustrates a block diagram of an offline-payment operated machine 1500 in accordance with some implementations. For example, the offline-payment operated machine 1500 (e.g., a form of the machine 120) is an electro-mechanical machine capable of accepting currency (e.g., coins), which is not connected to any networks (e.g., telephone, cellular, or Wi-Fi). For example, the offline-payment operated machine 1500 is a washer or dryer at a laundromat, a parking meter, a car wash payment kiosk, or other offline-payment operated machine that dispenses goods and/or services. Ex. 1002, 39:38–48 (emphases added). The ’608 patent emphasizes that offline-payment operated machine 1500 is merely an example. Id. at 39:52– 56 (“The components of the offline-payment operated machine 1500 in FIG. 28A are examples and one of skill in the art will appreciate that various” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A [person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)], as of the date of the alleged invention, would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Information Technology, or a related/equivalent field and at least three years of work experience in electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or telecommunication solutions. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 52). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill to determine whether it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition is unpatentable. This level of skill in the art is consistent with the disclosure of the ’608 patent and the prior art of record. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), “[t]he specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same . . . .” To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must reasonably convey to skilled artisans that the patentee possessed the claimed invention as of the filing date. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The requirement under § 112 does not demand that the specification recite the claimed invention verbatim. Id. at 1352 (citations omitted). The “claimed subject matter need not be described in haec verba in the specification in order for that specification to satisfy the description requirement.” In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914 (CCPA 1973). “Original claims are part of the original specification and in many cases will satisfy the written description requirement.” Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner, itself, indicates that the specification of the ’608 patent discloses an interface module counting the electrical pulses generated by a coin receiving switch. The Petition states: “Specifically, the objective inquiry reveals that it is only the ‘first interface module’ that is mentioned as counting one or more electrical pulses generated by the coin receiving switch.” Pet. 32; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 125 (corresponding testimony of Mr. Smith). In this regard, the ’608 patent states: In FIG. 28A, the first interface module 1522 is configured to sample payment acceptance signals from the microswitch 1502 (e.g., a coin receiving switch) via lead 1532 of the offline-payment operated machine 1500. For example, the payment acceptance signals are indicative of a coin being received by the microswitch 1502 which depress lever 1504. Ex. 1002, 40:35–40. The ’608 patent also describes FIG. 28B as illustrating signals sampled by the first interface module 1522, “[f]or example, the preset sequence of payment acceptance signals indicative of the preset number of coins include pulses (i.e., payment acceptance signals) 1552, 1554, 1556, and 1558.” Id. at 40:50–58; see also id. at 41:59–42:4 (“payment acceptance signals are indicative of a preset number of coins received by the coin receiving switch”); 42:49–55 (describing identifying a count of pulses). The ’608 patent further states: “[T]he terms used for labels (e.g., ‘first,’ ‘second,’ and ‘third’) are meant solely for purposes of designation and not for order or limitation.” Id. at 46:11–14. Claim 19, as originally filed, recited limitation (b), with the coin counting interface module being labeled as the second interface module. Ex. 1003, 283. Given the originally filed claim 19 and the above disclosures of the ’608 patent, Petitioner does not persuade us that the ’608 patent does not reasonably convey to skilled artisans that the patentee did not possess the claimed invention as of the filing date. Petitioner does not show sufficiently that claims 19–20 are more likely than not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of written description.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,891,608
• Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2021 · IPR2020-00846 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “According to our rules, “[a]rguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). For example, the Board has explained that “parties that incorporate expert testimony by reference in their petitions, motions, or replies without providing explanation of such testimony risk having the testimony not considered by the Board.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35–36 (November 2019) (“TPG”)3 (citing Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative)).” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Lipoff, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing,” and that “[m]ore education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41–48). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. On the complete record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology 7 The complete record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. described in the Specification and the cited prior art and adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 26

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

    “proposed combination with Kovatch. PO Resp. 37. According to the Federal Circuit, “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)) (alteration in original). However, “the ‘mere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away.’” Id. at 1334 (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Indeed, “just because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.” Id. (citing Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553). Specifically, Patent Owner (PO Resp. 37), points to disclosure in Neal describing disadvantages of a keyword search strategy (e.g., “users must be familiar with the appropriate key word terms that are likely to yield the desired data records”) and disadvantages of a classification search strategy (e.g., “users may not always anticipate the proper classification of certain records, and may search the wrong categories for their desired database record”). Ex. 1007, 2:16–65. Neal then describes a “preferred embodiment” in which “the system manager will expand the scope of the search strategies from ‘exact’ string matches, along a continuum of search methodologies, including perhaps fuzzy logic strategies.” Id. at 7:14–17. According to Neal, “[t]he purpose of expanding the search strategies is to avoid the situation wherein the search fails to identify the desired item from any data set, and thereby drops into logical block 222 a negative search result is reported to the user.” Id. at 7:28–32. Patent Owner argues that “Neal advocates for employing a sequence of search algorithms from the narrowest to the most broad.” PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 1007, 7:56–58; Ex. 2059 ¶ 124). Patent Owner contends that Neal teaches away from a combination “that employs a single keyword matching search strategy.” Id. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s combination of Kovatch and Neal results in a system that only sequentially searches datasets using a single keyword matching search strategy, and not the cascading sequence of search methodologies described by Neal. Id. at 37–39. We do not agree with Patent Owner that Neal teaches away from a system that employs a single keyword matching search strategy. Indeed, Neal’s preferred embodiment expressly contemplates such a system. For example, Neal describes employing a first “exact string search” methodology to search a first data set (Figure 2, block 206). Ex. 1007, 6:34– 46. This appears to be what Patent Owner considers a “single keyword matching search strategy.” PO Resp. 37–38. Neal describes that if this search of the first data set does not yield a match, the system searches a second data set using a second search methodology (Figure 2, block 210). Ex. 1007, 6:47–52. However, in the preferred embodiment there is no requirement that the second search methodology in 210 must be different from the first search methodology in 206. For example, if the first preferred supplier did not yield an exact string match to the input search term, the same search methodology could be applied to a second preferred supplier’s catalog. Id. at 6:59–65. Thus, Neal expressly teaches using a single keyword search strategy on a first dataset and the same keyword search strategy on a second dataset, without necessarily employing a cascading sequence of different search methodologies. See Reply 19.” slip op. at 39

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

    “advertisements while waiting for information to be retrieved; rather, it first retrieves the requested information and then generates an audio stream with both the commercials and retrieved information. Reply 22–23 (citing Ex. 1005, 14:1–8, 18:1–15; Ex. 1057 ¶ 18). Petitioner’s characterization of Kovatch is correct (and Patent Owner’s incorrect). Kovatch’s system first navigates to a destination and retrieves requested information (step 6), then generates commercials (step 8), then intermixes the commercials and information (step 9), and finally returns speech to the user (step 10). Ex. 1005, 14:1–8. We find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that, when combined, Neal’s teachings would have an adverse impact on Kovatch’s generation and presentation of advertisements.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 7,076,431 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,076,431
• Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.Other
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2021 · IPR2020-00847 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “Turning now to obviousness, Petitioner identified disclosure within Kurgonov-262 and Chakrabarti which teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. Pet. 11–21. Furthermore, Petitioner identified multiple reasons that would have prompted the skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1. Id. at 21–22. Because Patent Owner focused its arguments solely on the issue of whether Kurganov-262 is prior art, Petitioner’s assertions regarding the substantive teachings of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti remain unrebutted on the complete record. PO Resp. 31–34; Sur-reply 1–3. Patent Owner likewise failed to substantively address Petitioner’s proffered reasons why the skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings. PO Resp. 31–34; Sur-reply 1–3. We have reviewed the disclosures of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti relied on by Petitioner, as well as the explanations provided by Mr. Lipoff, and are persuaded that the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed in the prior art. Pet. 11–21; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–109; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1008. Petitioner also persuades us that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Chakrabarti’s techniques for web crawling to Kurganov-262’s system, and would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully doing so, thus arriving at the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ084 patent. Pet. 21–23; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–114. Therefore, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ084 patent would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner describes a person having ordinary skill in the art as having “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing. More education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41–47). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the skilled artisan. See generally, PO Resp. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Thus, on the complete record, we accept Petitioner’s assessment of the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. C. Asserted Obviousness based on Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Rather, on the complete record, Patent Owner makes inadequately supported assertions regarding what the skilled artisan “would understand” based on the ʼ084 patent’s disclosure. See PO Resp. 33–34. For example, Patent Owner asserts that “[a] POSITA would understand that” polling or pinging “describes a process where by existing and new devices and/or websites are discovered,” and that “‘polling’ includes asking for information from a website, including a listing of URLs or asking a website of a search engine to provide new website information.” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 2059 ¶¶ 154–155). We reject this line of argument because we afford minimal weight to Patent Owner’s reliance on paragraphs 153–155 of Exhibit 2059. PO Resp. 33–34. These declaration paragraphs provide little detail beyond what is argued in the Patent Owner Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 22

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that sufficient written description support does not exist in the ʼ996 application for “limitation 1.i” which requires the computing device to be “configured to periodically search via the one or more networks to identify new web sites and to add the new web sites to the plurality of web sites.” Pet. 6–11. Thus, we determine that Kurganov-262 is available as prior art against the challenged claims. On the complete record, Patent Owner fails to direct us to specific disclosure within the ʼ996 application that evinces written description for limitation 1.i. Rather, Patent Owner’s citations to the ʼ084 patent fail to describe with adequate precision a computing device configured to periodically search the network(s) to identify new web sites and add such new web sites to the plurality of web sites that are accessed. See PO Resp. 31–34.” slip op. at 20

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,451,084
• Canon Inc. / Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Hidehiko NakajimaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2020 · PGR2018-00090 · APJ John P Pinkerton · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 are unpatentable under § 112(a) for lack of written description and under the stated § 103 combinations; the § 112(b) indefiniteness challenge was not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “E. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’625 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in optical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optics or physics, with at least three years of experience working in optical engineering, a master’s degree in one of the above disciplines with at least two years of experience working in optical engineering, a Ph.D. in one of the above disciplines focusing on optical engineering, or other equivalent experience. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 48). In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. on Inst. 11. Patent Owner did not file a Patent Owner Response and, therefore, has not expressed a position on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on the subject matter at issue and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal and apply this level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner contends that we should construe the following terms or phrases: (1) “mechanical control”; (2) “a mechanism separate from the rotation and the selector”; and (3) “wherein the rotary switch is configured to rotate without exerting mechanical control over a mechanism separate 11 The claim construction standard recently changed for all post-grant proceedings filed on or after November 13, 2018. See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018). Because the Petition in this proceeding was filed on August 6, 2018, however, the applicable claim construction standard remains the “broadest reasonable construction,” as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (2018). from the rotation and the selector switch.” Pet. 11–15. Petitioner asserts that all other claim terms need not be construed and should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 10. We agree with Petitioner and, therefore, we construe below the terms and phrases identified by Petitioner. We also determine that no express interpretation of any other claim term is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 13

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

    “mean ‘directing influence over’ when used to describe an act, such as in ‘exerting . . . control’ here.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1018, 3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 54). Petitioner further contends that, although the ’625 patent’s Specification does not discuss “mechanical control” at all, it does use the word “control” to describe acts in a manner consistent with this meaning. Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:58–60 (“[T]he digital camera system controls the discrete function or the continuous function corresponding to the output.”), 7:19–21). Thus, Petitioner argues that the term “mechanical control,” as used in the ’625 patent, means “physically engaging to direct influence over.” Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 55). We agree with Petitioner that, outside of independent claim 1, the composite term “mechanical control” is not used in the ’625 patent’s Specification. Regarding Petitioner’s proposed construction of “physically engaging to direct influence over,” we note that neither the Specification nor Petitioner’s definition of “control” requires or suggests “engaging.” Considering the claim terms “mechanical” and “control” in light of the Specification, the definition of “mechanical,” Petitioner’s arguments, and Petitioner’s dictionary definition of “control,” we maintain our construction from the Institution Decision and we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “mechanical control” is “physical influence over.” Dec. to Inst. 16.” slip op. at 15

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable

    “Based on the record, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the “wherein clause” limitation lacks written description support in the Prior Applications and the ’625 patent’s Specification. First, as explained in our claim construction analysis above, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the limitation “wherein the rotary switch is configured to rotate without exerting mechanical control over a mechanism separate from the rotation and the selector switch” is a negative limitation. See supra Section II.C.3. We have construed the limitation to mean that the rotary switch “is configured to rotate so as not to exert physical influence over a component that is not part of (1) the rotary switch, or the ball bearing between the rotary switch and camera chassis, and (2) the selector switch and its parts.” We are persuaded that this is a negative limitation because it excludes rotary switches configured to exert physical influence over any physical component other than the rotary switch and ball bearing with which it rotates, as well as the selector switch and its parts.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,813,625 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,813,625
• Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 4, 2018 · PGR2018-00004 · APJ Stacey G White · PGR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show an abuse of discretion in finding claims 1–45 supported and enabled.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “III. STANDARD OF REVIEW “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When requesting rehearing of a decision, the challenging party must identify specifically all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in the record. Id. When considering a request for rehearing of a decision on whether to institute trial, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, on factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, or represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We address Petitioner’s arguments with these principles in mind.” slip op. at 3

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

    “’472 patent is eligible for post-grant review. Dec. 16. Here, eligibility for post-grant review depends on the effective filing date of the challenged claims. When determining the effective filing date, a claim is entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date when an earlier application discloses the claimed invention “in the manner provided by § 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode).” See id. at 6 (citing US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC, Case PGR2015- 00019, slip. op. at 7 (PTAB Dec. 28, 2016) (Paper 54)). The ’472 patent was the latest in a chain of continuation applications that dates back to U.S. Patent Application No. 13/169,9685 (“968 Application”), which was filed on June 27, 2011. Ex. 1001, at [63]. We previously determined that the 968 5 There are other applications in this chain, but none of those applications are relevant to the issues presented here and thus, we do not address those applications. Application and the ’472 patent have substantially identical specifications and figures. See Dec. 7 (finding that the 968 Application and the patent application from which the ’472 patent issued are substantially identical). We thus determined that we were able to “analyze the ’472 patent’s eligibility for post grant review through a discussion of Petitioner’s arguments as to written description support in the ’472 patent.” Id. at 8. We then found that Petitioner failed to establish that the challenged claims lack written description support or are not enabled. See id. at 12, 15–16.” slip op. at 4

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

    “The ’472 patent expressly recites: Actuation of activation switch 85 causes logic control circuit 18 of programming station 3 to randomly generate a unique security code (i.e. SDC) that is transmitted via communication circuit 20 to communication circuit 79 of programmable key 5, which in turn stores the randomly generated SDC in security code (SDC) memory 81 of the key . . . . [T]he SDC initially provided by the programming station 3 is randomly generated and is unique to that programming station and always remains with that programming station for subsequent use. Thus, the SDC initially generated always stays with the programming station 3 and is subsequently programmed into one or more programmable keys 5. Ex. 1001, 9:23–43 (emphases added); see also id. at 10:6–12 (“[T]he particular programming station 3 of the retail store [is] used to program the key with the SDC.”). The ’472 patent also discloses that the programming station “reprogram[s] or refresh[es] the SDC into the key” after the programmable key times out, which occurs after a predetermined period elapses from the time that the programmable key was last programmed or refreshed. See e.g., id. at 12:63–13:8. Specifically, the programming station performs a “handshake” with the key “to determine whether the key has not previously been programmed with a SDC (i.e. a ‘new’ key), or is an authorized key that is being presented to the programming station a subsequent time to refresh the SDC,” and once a proper “handshake” is completed, the programming station “permits the SDC generated by the logic control circuit and/or stored in the memory to be transmitted . . . [to] the programmable electronic key.” Id. at 16:4–19. Thus, the programming station is responsible for generating the SDC and transmitting it to the programmable key. More to the point, the ’472 patent discloses that “the programming station will deactivate a SDC stored in the SDC memory of a key if an incorrect SDC is encountered when the programming station is attempting to reprogram or refresh the key.” Id. at 13:13–17 (emphases added). This contradicts Petitioner’s proposition that a key programmed with one SDC from a first programming station can then program that same SDC into a second programming station. The ’472 patent expressly teaches how to deal with a situation in which a second programming station encounters an incorrect SDC in the memory of a key: it deactivates the SDC stored in the key.” slip op. at 7

  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,659,472
• Microsoft Corporation v. Smart Skins LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00404 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Microsoft's rehearing request, maintaining that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 are entitled to the July 17, 2001 priority date and that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “part of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/087,098 (Ex. 1014, “the ’098 application”), which was filed on March 1, 2002, and that the ’864 patent and the ’098 application claim priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/306,326 (Ex. 1015, “the ’326 provisional”), which was filed on July 17, 2001. Dec. 14–15 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 10; Paper 14 (“PO Resp.”), 8; Ex. 1001; Ex. 1014, 2). We determined that Smart Skins LLC (“Patent Owner”) had shown sufficiently that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to a filing date of July 17, 2001, because the disclosures of the ’098 application and the ’326 provisional (collectively, “the priority applications”) provide written description support for the challenged claims of the ’864 patent. Dec. 14–21.” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “established by Patent Owner for the challenged claims (July 17, 2001) predates the earliest filing dates of Janik and Kehoe established by Petitioner (September 4, 2001, and October 24, 2001, respectively). Dec. 22. We determined that, as a result, Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Dec. 22. Therefore, we concluded that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 would have been obvious over Janik and Kehoe. Id. at 23. Petitioner argues that, because we erred in determining that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached

    “challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Petitioner requests that we address the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe “conditionally,” even if we do not change our determination regarding the priority date of the challenged claims. Req. Reh’g 15. We are not persuaded, though, that it would be an efficient use of resources to address all of the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe when Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Janik and Kehoe are prior art to the challenged claims. Therefore, we decline to “conditionally” address any remaining issues regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe.” slip op. at 15

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 7,079,864
• Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2017 · IPR2016-00892 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 are unpatentable: claims 1, 5–20, 22–25, and 27 as obvious over Rothbaum and Denison; claims 2–4, 21, and 26 as obvious over Rothbaum, Denison, and Ott.

  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 plain language of the claims. The term “matching” is used as a gerund (i.e., a verb acting as a noun) in claims 1 and 25 and ordinarily means “[t]he action of match.” Ex. 1020, 4, 6. Thus, the use of “upon a matching” suggests some action of a match, as opposed to, for example, “upon a match,” which might be read to require simply the existence of a match. This supports Petitioner’s view that the arming or disarming must be as a result of a “determination of a match” (a particular type of action).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We do not agree that the recital of various “forms of data communication” (Ex. 1001, 3:4–19) in the ’762 patent broadened the meanings of the term “communicate” and the phrase “configured to communicate” themselves. Rather, the “forms” of communication in the cited portion of the ’762 patent merely represent examples of the media or means by which the communication occurs in various preferred embodiments. Ex. 1001, 3:4–19 (listing at least seven examples). Thus, Petitioner does not persuade us that we need to construe the terms “communicate” and “configured to communicate” expressly to encompass both wireless and wired communications.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted nor how the different levels affect the parties’ analyses. Although there are slight differences between the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art, the parties’ declarants agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a four-year technical degree or the equivalent and some amount of professional experience. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we determine that the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been that of a person having a four year technical degree or equivalent experience with a minimum of two years of professional technical experience in the field of theft prevention devices or related security devices. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness analysis.” slip op. at 17

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

    “i. Analogousness of Rothbaum and Denison As an initial matter, to be considered for obviousness, a reference must be analogous art. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.”). A prior art reference qualifies as analogous art (1) if it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, it is nonetheless reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Id.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,884,762 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,884,762
• Microsoft Corporation v. Smart Skins LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00404 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over Lunsford and Canova; Janik and Kehoe do not qualify as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties do not identify any material differences between their respective definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 11–12; PO Resp. 5. Thus, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case. Further, our findings and conclusions in this case would be the same under either party’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. To the extent necessary, though, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition, which is supported by the declaration of Dr. Ian Cullimore. PO Resp. 5; Ex. 2006 ¶ 27. As such, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent in engineering or computer science, a minimum of a few years of experience with designing and developing software and hardware systems for mobile devices, and general knowledge of embedded systems, and software principles, peripherals, communications protocols, and the like.” slip op. at 5

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

    “We agree that the specification of the ’864 patent supports construing the adding limitations to mean “configured to enable or contribute to enabling the peripheral device and the mobile device to function together,” as Petitioner proposes. For example, the ’864 patent states that “I/O interface 406 [of electronics 400] facilitates an application or a system service of mobile device 300 in reading the inputs provided by peripherals 102–104, and to writing the outputs to be outputted to peripherals 102–104.” Ex. 1001, col. 4, l. 65–col. 5, l. 1 (emphasis added). The ’864 patent further explains that “protocol processor 403 [of electronics 400] is employed to recover the input data” from peripherals 102–104 (id. at col. 4, ll. 43–48 (emphasis added)), and that “device driver 532 [of mobile device 300] notifies protocol processor 403 to package the data for output to peripherals 102–104” (id. at col. 5, l. 66–col. 6, l. 1 (emphasis added)). These portions of the ’864 patent indicate that the electronic component, which includes the protocol processor, facilitates the transmission of data between the peripheral device and the mobile device, and, thus, contributes to enabling the peripheral device and the mobile device to function together. Id. at col. 6, ll. 3–4 (“Accordingly, data may be . . . inputted and/or outputted for mobile device 300 and peripherals 102–104.”).” slip op. at 7

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

    “burden to come forward with evidence that claims 1 and 15 are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. As a result, the burden of production returns to Petitioner to show that claims 1 and 15 are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Id. at 1380. Petitioner argues that the priority applications do not disclose that the electronic component is coupled to the LEDs or that the electronic component is configured (or designed) to add the LEDs to the mobile device. Pet. Reply 2–4. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “[t]he two ancestor applications . . . do not describe those LEDs interacting with either the mobile device or the supposed electronic component in the cover,” but instead imply “that the LEDs control themselves.” Id. at 3–4. Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. First, the priority applications do not imply that the LEDs control themselves. The priority applications disclose that the electronic component on the cover includes data for personalizing various aspects of the mobile phone. PO Resp. 15–16; Ex. 1014, 8–9 (“having data . . . for personalizing various behavioral or non-visual aspects of the personality of exposed mobile phone”), 21 (“During this exchange of data, settings . . . complementary to the personalizing theme of the interchangeable covering [are] immediately implemented in the mobile electronic device”); Ex. 1015, 7–8, 20. The priority applications further disclose that the “included data control[s] the LEDs.” PO Resp. 15; Ex. 1014, 17; Ex. 1015, 16. Thus, the priority applications convey that the electronic component on the cover includes data for controlling the LEDs. Second, the priority applications describe the LEDs as interacting with the mobile device and the electronic component. As discussed above, the priority applications disclose that the electronic component and the mobile phone exchange data for personalizing various aspects of the mobile phone. PO Resp. 15–16; Ex. 1014, 8–9, 21; Ex. 1015, 7–8, 20. With respect to personalization of the mobile phone using the LEDs on the cover, the priority applications disclose that the “LEDs may be utilized for various visual activities, such as, but not limited to, displaying a message, or lighting up corresponding to sounds.” PO Resp. 15; Ex. 1014, 17; Ex. 1015, 16. Thus, the priority applications convey that the electronic component is coupled to the mobile phone and the LEDs, and that the electronic component enables the mobile device to function together with the LEDs (e.g., so that the LEDs can be used to display a message or light up corresponding to sounds). Therefore, Patent Owner has shown sufficiently that claims 1 and 15” slip op. at 18

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

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the cited teachings of Lunsford and Canova. Pet. 23–26 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 32–38). We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning. Specifically, Lunsford and Canova relate to the same field of endeavor as the ’864 patent, that is, a cover for a mobile device that adds a peripheral to the mobile device.10 Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 27–30; Ex. 1003, col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 3; Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 47–55, col. 2, ll. 25–28. Further, as discussed above, Lunsford teaches a connector disposed on the cover body, and Canova also teaches a connector disposed on the cover body. Ex. 1003, col. 2, l. 64–col. 3, l. 5, col. 10, ll. 34–45, Fig. 3E; Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 53– 55, col. 2, ll. 1–8, col. 2, ll. 41–47, Figs. 5A, 5B. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these interrelated teachings of Lunsford and Canova so that the connector in Lunsford is disposed on the cover body as taught by Canova. Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 35–37; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“Often, it will be necessary . . . to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents”). Also, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to 9 As a result, the challenged claims would have been obvious over Lunsford, even without Canova. 10 In addition, Canova incorporates by reference the contents of Lunsford. Pet. 24; Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 6–8, col. 1, ll. 19–20. dispose the connector in Lunsford on the cover body, as taught by Canova, in order to allow the connector in Lunsford to mate easily with the corresponding connector of a handheld computer. Pet. 25–26; Ex. 1007 ¶ 38; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions”).” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 7,079,864 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,079,864
• Coxcom, LLC v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 15, 2017 · IPR2015-01762 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, 8, 13–17, 20, and 84–86 are unpatentable as obvious over Koether and Crater; claim 44 was not shown unpatentable on that ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “owner must provide sufficient rebuttal evidence to bring reasonably into question the accuracy of Petitioner’s identification of RPIs.” See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, 48,695 (Aug. 14, 2012). Whether a non-party is a real party in interest is a “highly fact-dependent question” that is addressed on a “case-by-case” basis. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,759. “A common focus of the inquiry is . . . whether the non-party exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding.” Id. The concept of control means that “the non-party ‘had the opportunity to present proofs and argument’ . . . or ‘to direct or control the content’ of the filing.” JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., Case CBM2014-00179, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Feb. 20, 2015) (Paper 11) (“JP Morgan”). “‘The evidence as a whole must show that the non-party possessed effective control over a party’s conduct of the [proceeding] as measured from a practical, as opposed to a purely theoretical standpoint.’” Id. (quoting Gonzalez v. Banco Cent Corp., 27 F.3d 751, 759 (1st Cir. 1994)).” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Ex. 1001, Abst. It describes the relevant problems encountered in the art as those involved in the control, monitoring, or security of vehicles or premises, in a network environment. Id. at 1:20–52; 3:12–21. The ’363 patent is not directed to specific issues associated with electrical circuits or electrical connections between devices. The Specification identifies no specific problem that stems from the apparatus being a particular type of electrical device. From this evidence, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ’363 patent would be skilled in the field of networked systems. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill in the art requires specific coursework or education in the form of a degree in electrical engineering. Instead, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and our finding of the level of ordinary skill is similar to that proposed by Petitioner, but with a slight modification, i.e., that a basic level of experience is required, at the level of at least two years of experience in networked systems. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is that of one having at least two years of working experience with networked systems. A more advanced degree would be paired with a shorter period of working experience.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive reason for giving Mr. Bennett’s testimony little or no weight. Moreover, as discussed above, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’363 patent would be required to have a specific degree or coursework in electrical engineering. We are, thus, not persuaded that Mr. Bennett’s answers, during deposition, to questions about his background are wrong or that the entirety of his testimony should be given little or no weight based on this testimony.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “For purposes of the Decision to Institute, we construed the terms “remote,” “premises,” and “located at.” Dec. 8–9. We reviewed and adopted Patent Owner’s explicit definitions for these terms, which Patent Owner provided in the prosecution of the application that issued as the ’363 patent. Dec. 8 (citing Ex. 2002). Based on our review of the full record, we discern no reason to modify or further discuss in this Final Written Decision our constructions for these claim terms. For convenience, these claim constructions are reproduced in the table below. Term Citations Construction Remote Ex. 2002, “‘Remote’ means ‘separate and apart from, or 10–11 external from, or at a distance from or distant from, or not located in.’” Premises Ex. 2002, 8– “‘Premises’ means ‘a building or a structure 9 and the grounds or parcel of land associated with the building or the structure, or a building or structure or a portion, room, or office, of or in the building or structure, or a home, mobile home, mobile building, mobile structure, residence, residential building, office, commercial building, commercial office, structure, equipment, facility, machine, rig, assembly line, or edifice.’” Located at Ex. 2002, 8 “‘Located at’ means ‘situated at, or situated in, or situated on.’”” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 7,397,363 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,397,363

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.