• ROKU, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 14, 2022 · PGR2021-00111 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the challenged patent was not eligible for post-grant review; it found the priority applications supported claims 6 and 19 and did not reach the § 101 ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the above reasons, we are persuaded that the ’031 patent’s priority applications (pre-AIA applications) provide written description support for the claim limitation that “that the “output system” (claim 6) or “output device” (claim 19) can be an “Internet appliance.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that claims 6 and 19 have an effective filing date after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, claims 6 and 19 do not render the ’031 patent eligible for post-grant review under AIA § 6(f)(2)(A). Accordingly, the information presented in the Petition does not establish that the ’031 patent is eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 16

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “Finally, the definition of output device in the priority ’765 Application (as in the Specification of the ’031 patent) is that an “[o]utput device [] is an electronic system capable of outputting digital content … Any device capable of playing or reading digital content in voice (e.g., music, speech) or data (e.g., text, document) is also a possible output device.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (alterations in original) (quoting Ex. 1011 (’765 application) ¶ 89, Ex. 1001, 16:29–41). An Internet appliance does fall within that definition. The ’765 Application also contemplates that an output device is a network device accessible through an IP address. See Ex. 1011, 14 (referring to “[i]dentification of an output device” by “IP address”). Put another way, the priority application adequately describes a device fitting the description of” slip op. at 14

  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 10,846,031
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2022 · PGR2021-00108 · APJ Aaron W Moore · PGR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,931,797
• 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
• Nikon Corporation v. Carl Zeiss AG And ASML Netherlands B.V.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2019 · IPR2018-00686 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Nikon’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–5, 7–10, 16, 24, and 30–33 based on § 325(d) and the priority-date analysis.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) provides that: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically 1 The Petition, in an apparent typographic error, omits claim 5 from its listing of challenged claims on page 1. identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply. (Emphasis added.) See Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co. Inc., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied

    “In the Institution Decision, we denied institution of Ground 1 based on our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Inst. Dec. 17. Specifically, we determined that the Kaifu reference relied on by Petitioner was considered during prosecution. Id. Petitioner asserts that we misapprehended or overlooked its arguments regarding why its contentions as to Kaifu were not considered by the Examiner.” slip op. at 3

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

    “written description. To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, the specification must “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal brackets omitted) (en banc) (quoting Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Thus, the specification must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor possessed, at the time of filing, the subject matter that he or she has claimed. Id. “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. Whether a specification complies with the written description requirement is a question of fact. Id. at 1351, 1355. Entitlement to a filing date extends only to subject matter that is disclosed, not to that which is obvious. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–72 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We determine that because the open ended term “comprising” was used in the original claim reciting “a” signal, the recitation of “a” signal and “one or more” signals would have the same scope. An indefinite article, such as “a,” in patent parlance encompasses “one or more” when used, as here, in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase “comprising.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Unless the claim is specific as to the number of elements, the article ‘a’ receives a singular interpretation only in rare circumstances when the patentee evinces a clear intent to so limit the article.” Id. Thus, the claim as amended, which removes the open ended preface “comprising” and changes the modifier of “select signals” from “a” to “one or more,” does not change the scope of the claim in that respect. It merely is a different phrasing. Thus, as we stated in the Institution Decision, any description of a system with one signal would necessarily support a claim to one or more signals. Inst. Dec. 28. Additionally, the claim, as amended, does not suggest there is choice between alternatives that would meet this claim. For example, the claim does not require a choice between a first type of signal and a second type of signal. The claim recites “one” signal, which can be optionally accompanied (“or”) by “more” signals.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,728,574
• 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

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.