• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2018 · CBM2016-00095 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 are unpatentable under § 101 and § 103(a) over Tymes; unpatentability under § 112, ¶ 1 was not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments, as they conflate “power” with “transmission range”—the claim term recites “low-power,” not “low-transmission range.” We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed construction would import improperly a limitation into the claims, and we credit Mr. James T. Geier’s testimony (Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 34−39) as it consistent with the other evidence of record before us. We address below each of Patent Owner’s arguments in turn. First, Patent Owner argues that “the claim language itself indicates that the claimed low-power transceiver transmits low-power signals,” citing the language of claim 2, “wherein the low-power signal comprises a logical IP address.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:60–61). However, “the low-power signal” does not necessarily require a transceiver to transmit signals having a limited transmission range. Patent Owner does not explain meaningfully, or provide persuasive evidence to show, how a “low-power signal” is necessarily related to the transmission range of a transceiver. Consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, “a low-power transceiver” refers to a transceiver that consumes less power, e.g., by transmitting and receiving low power signals. Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 34−39.” slip op. at 23

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

    “However, Patent Owner’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The purported problems that arose with the development of networks hosting wireless device—unlawful interruption of that data, interference, and contention—are addressed by using an extremely low-power transmitter. Ex. 1001, 5:65−6:11. As discussed above, the challenged claims recite a generic “low-power transceiver,” not an extremely low-power transmitter. Additionally, the alleged problem of transforming data to a different protocol is addressed by an unclaimed feature, as the ’842 patent itself recognizes that the invention is not necessarily limited to certain protocol or requires a protocol conversion. Id. at 13:55−14:5. Moreover, the challenged claims do not requires a protocol conversion or recite a device for converting data from one protocol to a different protocol. Rather, they recite generically a “network of addressable devices.” Patent Owner’s argument that the claims are “directed to an improvement in communication technology between remote devices that are accessible by wireless communication and a central location via a circuit interface” is unavailing. Significantly, the claims are not directed to a new type of transceiver, interface circuit, or controller to establish a communication link between a remote device and the central location. Instead, the claims are directed to transmitting data between locations using conventional or generic computer components. The challenged claims essentially recite a device for communicating information that comprises: (1) a low-power transceiver for transmitting or receiving data; (2) an interface circuit for communicating with a central 33 location; and (3) a controller for establishing a communication link. The Specification confirms that these features were known in the art. Ex. 1001, 5:23–25, 6:62–64 (“As is well known by those skilled in the art, a variety of transducers can perform this functionality adequately.”), 10:13–15 (“[T]he controller 256 may be a general purpose microprocessor or microcontroller.”), 10:21–23 (“The interface 258 within the transceiver 270 is designed to interface with this typical/standard telephone circuitry 263.”), 10:23–26 (“The specific implementation of the circuitry of [interface] 258 will be appreciated by persons skilled in the art and need not be described in detail herein.”). Indeed, the FCC Bulletin also confirms that low-power wireless transmitters were “used virtually everywhere,” noting that “[c]ordless phones, baby monitors, garage door openers, wireless home security systems, keyless automobile entry systems and hundreds of other types of common electronic equipment rely on such transmitters to function.” Ex. 2001, 1. Moreover, the ’842 patent itself recognizes that the communication link between the remote device and central location can be established by initiating a phone call over a telephone line that is part of the public-switched telephone network. Ex. 1001, 2:34−38. There is no dispute that such a communication link was known in the art. Id. at 10:21−26.” slip op. at 33

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “38 For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 of the ’842 patent are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Whether the challenged claims lack a patent-eligible inventive concept Turning to the second step in the analysis, we look for additional elements that can “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea. That is, we determine whether the claims include an “inventive concept,” i.e., an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. The additional elements must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 768 S. Ct. at 1297−98. Here, Petitioner argues that claims 1, 7, 9, 16, and 17 are unpatentable because they are “directed only to an abstract idea with nothing more added than generic computing components and ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity’ previously performed in the field (both individually and as an ordered combination in the claims).” Pet. 23–24 (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). According to Petitioner, the challenged claims “recite the concept of establishing a communication route between two points ‘as performed by a generic computer,’ without disclosing any ‘novel or unusual’ improvement to ‘the functioning of the computer itself’ or any ‘advance in computer technology that makes the performance of [routine] functions more effective.” Id. at 24 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358–60). 39” slip op. at 38

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

    “As Petitioner notes (Pet. 66−68; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 353−366), Tymes discloses “an improved, low-cost, low-power, data communication network in which a number of remote terminal units are able to send packets of data to a central station, and . . . to receive acknowledge signals and data from the central station.” Ex. 1005, 2:36−56 (emphasis added). Tymes describes that the central station includes a number of base stations connected to a central computer. Id. at 3:21−25. As shown in Figure 1, the network includes base stations 12−14, each of which “is coupled by an RF link to a number of remote units.” Id. at 4:61−5:44. The RF link is used for sending “data packets from the remote terminals to the base stations and return.” Id. at 3:48−51 (emphasis added), 6:66–7:2. In fact, Tymes teaches that the “advantage of this type of RF data link is that a band may be used which does not require site licensing by the F.C.C.” Id. at 3:55−59. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that “low-power” refers to only the remote terminals, Tymes describes a low-power network that includes base stations. As Petitioner also notes (Pet. 66–67, n.38), Tymes teaches an “indoor” limited range network and an RF data link “usable without site licensing under F.C.C. regulations, so that the expense and delays incident to such licensing are eliminated or minimized.” Ex. 1005, 2:36–56. Significantly, Tymes discloses that the optimum frequency is in the 902−928 MHz range 54 for the RF transceivers in the base stations. Id. at 6:66–7:2, 13:58–61, 18:1−3. The FCC limits the power for unlicensed transmitters, and the power limit under the FCC regulations is less than or equal to one watt for the disclosed 902–928 MHz range. Ex. 1010, 217; Ex. 1017, 7:9–11, 31–34. Mr. Geier testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have understood that an indoor communications network as taught by Tymes requires only a limited range (e.g., 1 mile or less (the length of a storage facility)), so that high-powered transceivers would be unnecessary and disfavored,” and that such an artisan “would have considered a transmission of 1 Watt to be a ‘low-power’ transmission, with a limited range of approximately 1 mile.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 358−359. Mr. Geier also testifies that such an artisan would have had a reason to use low-power transceivers in the base stations so that they are usable indoors without licensing under the FCC regulations. Id. We credit Mr. Geier’s testimony as it is consistent with Tymes’ teachings and other evidence. Ex. 1005, 2:36–56, 6:66–7:2, 13:58−61, 18:1−3, Figs. 1, 3, 10; Ex. 1010, 21; Ex. 1017, 7:9−11, 29−34 (explaining that “unlicensed systems using conventional modulation techniques attain ranges on the order of 500−1000 feet” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 8,908,842 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,908,842
• Wombat Security Technologies v. Phishme, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 20, 2017 · PGR2017-00009 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · PGR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Wombat’s rehearing request, leaving institution of PGR denied because the petition did not show the patent was eligible for PGR.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “DISCUSSION The applicable standard for granting a request for rehearing is abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The requirements of a request for rehearing are set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which provides in relevant part: A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single 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 identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” slip op. at 3

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

    “sufficiently shown that the ’038 patent was eligible for post-grant review. Inst. Dec. 8–13. Specifically, we found deficient Petitioner’s contention that the challenged claims were not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of Application No. 13/785,252 (“the ’252 application”) to which the ’038 patent claims priority as a continuation-in-part. Inst. Dec. 8–13. This finding was based on the following deficiencies of the Petition: (1) the Petition did not discuss the relevant disclosure of the application to which the ’038 patent claims priority—Application No. 13/785,282 (“the ’252 application”)—as originally filed, citing instead to the ’940 patent, which issued from the ’252 application; (2) the Petition did not address the Examiner’s statements in the Notice of Allowability that “[t]he present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions”; and (3) Petitioner did not satisfy its burden to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the inventor to have possession of “providing feedback to the individual confirming that the identified email was a simulated phishing attack” (“the feedback limitation”). Id. For the third deficiency, we found the feedback limitation supported by at least paragraphs 5 and 18 of the ’252 application, which discuss training individuals who receive simulated phishing attacks such that users are better able to recognize and thwart a real phishing attack. Id. at 11–12.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached

    “being recited expressly in the ’252 application it “satisf[ied] its burden to establish that it was more likely than not that the ’038 patent was not entitled to the filing date of the [’252 application].” Reh’g Req. 3. In Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., however, the Federal Circuit explicitly found that identifying a limitation as not being recited expressly in the specification at issue was not enough to support a finding of lack of written description. 815 F.3d 1331, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit explained that it was “troubled by the fact that the Board did not cite any evidence other than the fact that the terms were not present in the specification to support its finding,” concluding this placed “undue weight on the absence of the [exact] terms appearing in the specification.” Id. at 1345–46. Petitioner’s burden, therefore, is not established simply by pointing out that the ’252 application does not explicitly state the feedback limitation.” slip op. at 4

  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,398,038
• L’Oréal USA, Inc. v. Liqwd, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 19, 2017 · PGR2017-00011 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–10 because Petitioner did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 112.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Moreover, “[a]pplicants can define . . . claim scope during prosecution,” just as they can in a patent specification. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, during prosecution of the ’419 patent, the applicant stated that “[t]he term ‘hair coloring agent’ refers to a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” Ex. 1005, 7. To define specific terms used to describe an invention, the applicant need only set out the definition “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” “so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). On the present record, the definition of the term “hair coloring agent” set out in the prosecution history of the ’419 patent is sufficiently clear, deliberate, and precise to give a person of ordinary skill in the art notice that the term is used in the ’419 patent in a manner that does not include substances other than “colorant[s] or pigment[s] that [are] customarily used in hair care products,” even if those other substances might be described as “hair coloring agents” outside the context of the ’419 patent. Ex. 1005, 7. Accordingly, we should give effect to that definition. Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” gives effect to the prosecution history’s definition of “hair coloring agent,” we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for purposes of the present decision. Thus, on the present record, and for purposes of the present decision, we construe “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.”” slip op. at 6

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Not shown unpatentable

    “to determine the scope of the claims. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent are indefinite.” slip op. at 10

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not shown unpatentable

    “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent.” Pet. 36–39; Prelim. Resp. 39–40. If “a hair coloring agent” encompasses bleaching agents, then the claims all require a bleaching formulation and simultaneously exclude a bleaching agent, a scope that Petitioner argues is not described in the specification of the ’419 patent. As discussed above, however, we interpret “wherein the mixture does not contain a hair coloring agent” as “wherein the mixture applied to the hair does not have a colorant or pigment that is customarily used in hair care products, which changes the color or tone of the hair it is applied to based on visual inspection.” We have not been directed to evidence of record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered a bleaching agent to be “a colorant or pigment.” Pet. 7 (describing bleaching as a “process[] that destroy[s] pigment to change hair color,” as opposed to a “process[] that deposit[s] dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair to change hair color”); Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15 (contrasting “dyeing,” meaning “processes that alter or change hair color by depositing dyes, pigments, or other substances onto the hair,” with “bleaching,” meaning “the application of an oxidizing agent to hair to destroy the natural or artificial pigment”). Accordingly, on the present record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown it is more likely than not that claims 1–10 of the ’419 patent lack written description support. slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,498,419
• United Services Automobile Association v. Nader Asghari-Kamrani And Kamran Asghari-KamraniRehearing denied
  PTAB · Oct 13, 2016 · CBM2016-00064 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving in place institution on claims 1–3, 5–28, and 30–55 based on the showing that those claims were more likely than not obvious over Nicholson and Brown.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

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

    “2003/0046591 A1 (Ex. 1017), published on March 6, 2003, and WIPO International Publication No. WO 03/021837 A1 (Ex. 1028), published on March 13, 2003, more than one year before the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008)—are also prior art under § 102(b), showing what was known in the art and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.4 See In re Van Langenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136–37 (CCPA 1972) (citing In re Hafner, 410 F.2d 1403 (CCPA 1969); In re Ruscetta, 255 F.2d 687, 690–91 (CCPA 1958)) (noting that, because the patentee could not claim the benefit of the filing date of any prior-filed application, the patentee’s own prior patent or publication that was published more than one year from the actual filing date of the application at issue was available as prior art under § 102(b)). Therefore, we disagree with Patent Owner that we committed a clear error in determining that claim 1 does not recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art, and that we committed a clear error in concluding that Petitioner had demonstrated that the claims at issue are more likely than not unpatentable as obvious over Nicholson and Brown. For the reasons stated above, Patent Owner has not established that we abused our discretion in determining that the ’432 patent is not excluded as a technological invention, and that it is more likely than not that claims 1–3, 4 Petitioner’s asserted ground of unpatentability, on which we instituted a trial, is based on the combination of Nicholson and Brown under § 103(a). See Paper 2, 27–63; Dec. 35. 13 5–28, and 30–55 of the ’432 patent are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Nicholson and Brown.” slip op. at 13

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

    “was made. Req. Reh’g 13–14 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). In the Decision (Dec. 18–19), we noted that in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). We further noted in the Decision (Dec. 19) that the prior art of record in the instant proceeding reflects the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art). On this record, Nicholson, which was filed on July 14, 2006, and published on January 25, 2007, predates the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008) by more than one year.2 Ex. 1034 at [22], [43]. And, Brown, which was filed on June 3, 1996, and issued on April 14, 1998, predates the actual filing date of the ’432 patent (September 15, 2008) by more than one year.3 Ex. 1035 at [22], [45]. Therefore, based on the current record, both Nicholson and Brown are prior art under § 102(b) as to the challenged claims. In addition, on this record, the publications of the first prior-filed application—U.S. Patent Application Publication No.” slip op. at 12

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

    “demonstrated based on the current record that the benefit claim to the third prior-filed application complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120, among which is the requirement that the original disclosure of the third prior-filed application provides written description support for the challenged claims as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See Dec. 26–27. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1268, 1276–77 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Once again, Patent Owner’s arguments ignore the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120. As we determined in our Decision, Patent Owner has not shown, at this juncture, that the original disclosure of the second prior-filed application or the original disclosure of the third prior-filed application provides sufficient written description support for each limitation of the challenged claims. Dec. 23–29. Without this showing, the challenged claims are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of any prior-filed application. Id. Therefore, on this record, “at the time of the invention” is not August 29, 2001, the filing date of the first prior-filed application, as alleged by Patent Owner, but rather, September 15, 2008, the actual filing date of the application that issued as the ’432 patent.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,266,432
• Apple, Inc. v. Personalweb Technologies, LLC, And Level 3 Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2015 · IPR2013-00596 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 24, 32, 70, 81, 82, and 86 are unpatentable as obvious over Woodhill and Stefik.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). To establish obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. See CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974). A patent claim composed of several elements, however, is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was known, independently, in the prior art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In that regard, for an obviousness analysis it is important to identify a reason that would have prompted one of skill in the art to combine prior art elements in the way the claimed invention does. Id. A precise teaching directed to the specific subject matter of a challenged claim, however, is not necessary to establish obviousness. Id. Rather, obviousness must be gauged in view of common sense and the creativity of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Id. Moreover, obviousness can be established when the prior art, itself, would have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Id. at 41–42. In support of its asserted ground of unpatentability, Apple proffers the testimony of Dr. Benjamin F. Goldberg. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 61–88.” slip op. at 13

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

    “C. Priority of the Subject Claims Apple asserted that claims 24, 32, 70, 81, 82, and 86 of the ’310 Patent are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the earliest priority application under 35 U.S.C. § 120. Pet. 55–57. Specifically, Apple asserted that the earliest priority application does not provide sufficient written description support for the claim feature: “a hash function.” Id. at 55. In the Decision to Institute, we found that that the original disclosure of the earliest priority application of the ’310 Patent—namely, the application filed on April 11, 1995—provides sufficient written description support for the claimed feature “a hash function.” Dec. 11–13. We are not persuaded that any modification is necessary in light of any evidence or argument introduced during trial. Thus, we determine that Priority Web has established that it is entitled to the benefit of the April 11, 1995 filing date.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Apple further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Woodhill and Stefik would have understood that the combination of Woodhill and Stefik would have allowed for the selective access features of Stefik to be used with Woodhill’s content-dependent identifiers feature. Pet. 42. We agree in this regard and are persuaded that the combination of Woodhill and Stefik renders claims 24, 32, 70, 81, 82, and 86 of the ’310 Patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,802,310 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,802,310
• Groupon, Inc. v. Blue Calypso, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00035 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–25 and 29 are unpatentable: claims 2–15, 20–23, and 29 over Paul; claims 1–19, 23–25, and 29 for lack of written description. Claims 26–27 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Accordingly, we look to the ordinary meaning of the term “subsidy”— financial assistance given by one to another.5 The ’516 patent’s use of “subsidy” is consistent with its ordinary meaning. Specifically, the ’516 patent describes an advertiser setting up a subsidy program to subsidize communication fees, offer product discounts, generate and accumulate “reward points” for subscribers, or mitigate or defer other expenses of the subscriber. Ex. 1001, 3:21–27 (referring to Fig. 2). These examples are financial in nature. Product discounts reduce the monetary cost of a financial transaction, reward points are a form of currency, and mitigating or deferring expenses reduces the monetary cost of a financial transaction or postpones the monetary cost of a financial transaction, respectively. Also, the ’516 patent describes, as part of a subscriber setup process, an intermediary presenting, to a subscriber for selection, “subsidy programs 5 AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 896 (3d ed. 1992) (defining “subsidy” as “1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest. 2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.”). available, including the criteria for continued subsidy and levels of subsidy.” Ex. 1001, 4:41–43 (referring to Fig. 3). For these reasons, in the Decision to Institute, the Board construed “subsidy” as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Dec. 7–9. Neither party challenges this construction. Having considered whether the construction set forth in the Decision to Institute should be changed in light of evidence introduced during trial, we are not persuaded any modification is necessary. Therefore, we maintain the construction of “subsidy” as “financial assistance given by one to another.”” slip op. at 7

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “The determination of whether a particular reference qualifies as a prior art printed publication “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it . . . .” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indexing is not “a necessary condition for a reference to be publicly accessible,” but is among many factors that may bear on public accessibility. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 1. Whether the Ratsimor Paper Was Publicly Accessible in November 2003 Although Petitioner does provide some evidence to support its position, after considering all of the evidence regarding the facts and the circumstances surrounding the public accessibility of the Ratsimor paper, in view of the relevant case law, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that the Ratsimor paper was publicly accessible in November 2003.” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “The determination of whether a particular reference qualifies as a prior art printed publication “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it . . . .” Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indexing is not “a necessary condition for a reference to be publicly accessible,” but is among many factors that may bear on public accessibility. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 1. Whether the Ratsimor Paper Was Publicly Accessible in November 2003 Although Petitioner does provide some evidence to support its position, after considering all of the evidence regarding the facts and the circumstances surrounding the public accessibility of the Ratsimor paper, in view of the relevant case law, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that the Ratsimor paper was publicly accessible in November 2003.” slip op. at 18

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

    “1. Principles of Law To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose more than “multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371. Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, the prior art reference is read from the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention.”); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,664,516 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,664,516
• Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Inc. v. 5th Market, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 17, 2014 · CBM2013-00027 · APJ Michael R Zecher · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–23 and 41–49 are unpatentable: claims 1–23 are indefinite, and claims 1–4, 6–23, and 41–49 are obvious; the motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “considered, including “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). There is evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge level of a person with ordinary skill in the art. CME’s expert witness, Dr. Pirrong, attests that a person with ordinary skill in the art would be an individual who possesses the following: (1) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, or another quantitative field such as mathematics, statistics, economics, or finance; (2) two to five years of work experience in any one of the aforementioned areas; and (3) an understanding of the operation of markets for financial instruments, including computerized and electronic markets. Ex. 1005 ¶ 44.” slip op. at 24

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

    “We are not persuaded by 5th Market’s proposed claim construction of the claim phrase “external price feed” because its construction of “outside” the network is overly narrow. 5th Market does not direct us to a disclosure in the Specification of the ’419 patent that suggests “outside” the network should be limited to a marketplace trading, but not aggregating orders for, the same securities or items as the originating CORE trading engine, or a diverse marketplace that does not trade or aggregate the same securities or items, as the originating CORE trading engine. If a feature is not necessary to give meaning to what the inventor means by a claim term, it would be 15 “extraneous,” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We decline to adopt 5th Market’s construction of “outside” the network as the broadest reasonable interpretation, as it would import extraneous limitations into the claims, and it would be inconsistent with the Specification of the ’419 patent. 5th Market’s attempt to limit “outside” the network to the two types of marketplaces identified above is not necessary to give meaning to the claim phrase “external price feed,” and should not be read into the claims that recite this feature. We maintain that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim phrase “external price feed” is “price data received from outside of the conditional order transaction network.” As we explained in the Decision to Institute (Dec. 20–22), this claim construction is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of “external,” as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art, in light of the ’419 patent.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “When construing a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, 3 the corresponding structure of a means-plus-function limitation must be more than simply a general-purpose computer or microprocessor to avoid impermissible functional claiming, unless certain narrow exceptions concerning generic computer functions apply. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see In re Katz Interactive Call Proc. Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That is, the specification must disclose “enough of an algorithm to provide the necessary structure under § 112, ¶ 6” or a disclosure that can be 3 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Nonetheless, because the ’419 patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (the effective date of the AIA), we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112. 18 expressed in any understandable terms, e.g., a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flowchart. Finisar Corp. v. The DirectTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Simply reciting a claimed function in the specification, and saying nothing about how the computer or processor ensures that such a function is performed, is not a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009). According to the Specification of the ’419 patent, Table 1 includes conditions that are available for input by subscribers, viewable by other subscribers, and executed by the system’s trading engine, e.g., the CORE trading engine illustrated in Figure 1. Ex. 1001, 17:20–23. Although the CORE trading engine is tantamount to a general purpose computer, there is no explicit disclosure that explains how the conditions included in Table 1 are used to compare orders. For instance, Table 1 includes, amongst other conditions, price, quantity, minimum quantity, cap, and a collar kill that may be used to compare orders. Id. at 17:25–18:20. Table 1, however, does not disclose a well-defined or otherwise recognizable sequence of steps that uses these conditions to compare orders. See Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384. Absent such a disclosure, we are not persuaded that the Specification of the ’419 patent discloses a specific algorithm that transforms an otherwise general purpose computer into a special purpose computer programmed to perform the recited function of “comparing.” See Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340. 19 In summary, because Federal Circuit precedent dictates that the corresponding structure for performing a specialized function, as here, cannot just be a general purpose computer, the Specification of the ’419 patent fails to disclose sufficient structure for performing the recited function of “comparing.”” slip op. at 18

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable

    “Table 1, that purportedly identify the corresponding structure for performing the recited function of “comparing.” PO Resp. 76–77 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:20–18:20; Ex. 2008 ¶ 86). 5th Market argues that these disclosures in the Specification collectively amount to a structure in the form of an algorithm that transforms an otherwise general purpose computer into a special-purpose computer programmed to perform the recited function of “comparing.” Id. at 77–78 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 87). In its Reply, CME contends that the ’419 patent does not disclose an algorithm for comparing orders, nor does it explain how a computer may be programmed to compare algorithmic orders with algorithmic or non-algorithmic orders. Pet. Reply 15. As we explained in the claim construction section above, upon reviewing the disclosures in the Specification of the ’419 patent relied upon by 5th Market in its Patent Owner Response, the Specification of the ’419 patent fails to disclose sufficient structure for performing the recited function of “comparing.” In other words, the conditions included in Table 1 of the ’419 patent, by themselves, do not set forth a well-defined or otherwise recognizable sequence of steps for comparing orders and, therefore, do not amount to a specific algorithm that transforms an otherwise general purpose computer into a special purpose computer programmed to perform the recited function of “comparing.” See Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340. Consequently, we conclude that CME has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–23, each of 21 which recites the claim phrase “means for comparing,” are indefinite under § 112 ¶ 2.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,418,419 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,418,419
• Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2014 · CBM2013-00004 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–78 are unpatentable: anticipated by Burge and Nakagawa, and claims 16, 17, 47, 63, and 64 are also obvious over the stated combinations with Herrod.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 120, a patent claim is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier-filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier-filed application provides written description support for the patent claim as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 297 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The specification must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor was in possession of the claimed subject matter, as of the filing date of the earlier-filed application. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563- 64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).” slip op. at 18

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

    “Upon reviewing the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we have reevaluated our determination in the Decision on Institution (Dec. 19- 30) that certain claim features lack written description support in the ’650 application. For example, we agree with Progressive that the claim term “a level of risk” does not require a level of risk to be “assigned based at least in part on the indicated level of willingness of the driver to allow at least one aspect to be recorded.” PO Resp. 10. Nevertheless, based on the record before us, we determine that the original disclosure of the ’650 application does not support the claimed subject matter set forth in claims 1-78 of the ’598 patent. For the reasons stated below, we determine that claims 1-78 of” slip op. at 17

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

    “C. Principles of Law To establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every element in a claim, arranged as is recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 30

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We disagree with Liberty that Mr. Zatkovich must be qualified both in the field of insurance and in the field of vehicle telematics to give reliable testimony in this proceeding. It is only the “hypothetical” person of ordinary skill in the art who possesses ordinary skill in each of the fields involved in a claimed invention. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to know the relevant prior art.”). The qualifications of Mr. Zatkovich, as summarized in his curriculum vitae (Ex. 2014), qualify him to give expert testimony on the subject of vehicle telematics, computer systems, and network communications. With regard to Mr. Zatkovich’s alleged lack of 5 With some enumerated exceptions, the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to covered business method patent review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.62. The Federal Rule of Evidence 702 entitled “Testimony by Experts” states: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. 59 ordinary skill on the specific subject of insurance, the Board weighs his testimony accordingly, taking into account the limited extent of his expertise. We also disagree that Mr. Zatkovich’s technical experience must have been acquired prior to January 1996. Under the Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify in the form of an opinion. Liberty has not shown that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires the witness to have particular experience with the specific subject matter of the ’598 patent, or requires the relevant experience of the witness to have been acquired during the January 1996 time-frame.” slip op. at 59

  Patent outcomesUS 8,090,598 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,090,598

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.