- Vudu, Inc. v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01689 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 11, 25, 27, and 29 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend proposing claims 31–35 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor does it present its own definition in any of its briefing. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the Specification of the ’414 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in any of its briefing. 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable
“The newly-cited portion in paragraph 232 does not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited in limitations [31.11], [32.12], and [35.7]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicate a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 31, 32, and 35 do not have sufficient written description support in the ’644 application and the ’092 application, either individually or collectively, and as such, contain new matter.” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“are not entitled to a priority date earlier than March 16, 2012 (the filing date of PCT ’922), because the disclosure of KR10-2011-0023271 does not support at least the limitations of: “the adaptation set includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the representations for that adaptation set,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11, and the “SegmentTemplate” recited in independent claims 25. Patent Owner has not asserted, after institution, that the challenged claims are entitled to an earlier date. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (indicating that patent owner bears a burden of production in arguing that the asserted references are not prior art based on entitlement to an earlier priority date). As such and for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has persuasively demonstrated that DIS 23001-6, DIS 23009-1, and 3GPP TS 26.247 qualify as prior art to the challenged claims, because Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that the references were publicly accessible prior to the applicable priority date of March 16, 2012.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 10,313,414 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,313,414 - PTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · PGR2021-00112 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 lacks written description support; all petition grounds were included.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“content for output.” Id. at 89. We determine, however, that Petitioner’s argument under Step 2A Prong One that claim 1 is directed to the “obtaining content for output” is not substantially different from the Examiner’s determination that claims 1‒20 recite “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Compare Pet. 37–88 (citing e.g. Electric Power), with Ex. 2001, 193–194 (also citing Electric Power). In both cases, the argument is the same or substantially the same, i.e., that similarly identified subject matter of the claim is obtaining (collecting) data and displaying (outputting) it. Nevertheless, as to Step 2A Prong Two, we determine that the claims at issue in the ’096 prosecution differ in material ways from the ’903 patent claims at issue in this PGR. Specifically, the ’096 patent claims recite a touchscreen interface not recited in the ’903 patent claims. Additionally, the ’903 claims focus on the “output device” as performing the patented steps but in the ’096 prosecution history the “‘information apparatus performs the patented steps and “is integral to the claims” (as the Applicant argued). See Ex. 2008 [comparison of ’096 prosecution claims and ’903 claims]; Ex. 2001, 150; see also Pet. 89 (“the claims at issue in the ’067 application were different than the claims of the ’903 patent addressed here.”). rejection and arguments in the ’096 prosecution history turns on whether the claims in this PGR recite different elements that must be determined to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., Prong Two of Step 2A). Petitioner argues that an essential element different than the ’096 claims, i.e. the output device, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims do not amount to an improvement to computer functionality. Pet. 37–72. We find this a close case. Nevertheless, due to the differences in the claims, we determine that the Examiner’s withdrawal of the § 101 rejection in light of the applicant’s arguments regarding the claim being directed to a specific technical solution is not substantially the same argument that Petitioner’s presents in the Petition as to Prong Two of Step 2A.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“C. Lack of Written Description Support Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable for lack of written description for the same reasons it contends the ’903 patent is PGR eligible. Pet. 13–36. The Specification of the ’903 patent has substantially the same disclosures as the Specification of the ’413 application relied on by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 20) to which the ’903 patent claims priority. Having determined that the disclosures in the ’903 patent Specification and the ’413 application is insufficient to provide written description support for the at least claim 1, we also determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is unpatentable for the same reasons. Thus, we exercise our discretion and institute post grant review of claims 1–20 challenged under this ground. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1369–60 (2018).” slip op. at 33
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateInstituted
“in the art at the time of the invention] would have understood that an output system/device could be (or include) an information apparatus. Prelim. Resp. 24. We determine that Patent Owner’s argument has a logical flaw––i.e., the fact that a particular device could be used alternately as an information apparatus or an output device does not necessarily mean that it was known by one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combined information apparatus/output device and have the new combined device perform all the additional functions required by the claims. “The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification.” Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Rivera”). “The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification . . . . It extends only to that which is 1997). Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’413 application teaching that an “output device” can perform the functions of the “information apparatus” including its interactions with the “output device.” For example, claim 1 recites “wirelessly receiving, by the output system . . . output data from at least one server of the one or more servers over the Internet.” Ex. 1001, 37:28–32. At this stage, we find sufficiently persuasive Petitioner’s argument, which we discuss above, that the only written description support for an “output device” that performs the claimed functions by accessing the Internet provided by Patent Owner is not an “output device” but an “information apparatus.” Prelim. Resp. at 27–29.” slip op. at 29
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Mayo · Bilski · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 11,029,903 - ROKU, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · 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 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,846,031 - PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 7, 2022 · IPR2021-01399 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Oakes I, Oakes II, Medina, and Roach qualify as prior art to claims 1–29.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“transmitted copy of the electronic images is a modified version of the electronic images captured with the digital camera, the modified version having a different electronic format than the images captured with the digital camera” recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 25. As explained above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments regarding these limitations. As a result, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that Oakes I, Oakes II, Medina, and Roach qualify as prior art to the challenged claims of the ’605 Patent. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its following assertions: (1) claims 12–23 and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I and Oakes II; (2) claims 12–23 and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, and Medina; (3) claims 1–11, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, and Roach; and (4) claims 1–11, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, Roach, and Medina. IV. CONCLUSION In view of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging any one of claims 1–29 of the ’605 Patent as unpatentable.” slip op. at 28
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“important to the invention is that the image capture device and general purpose computer are communicatively coupled, not their locations relative to one another. See, e.g., id. ¶ 33; accord Prelim. Resp. 32–33. In addition, the ’974 Application does not limit its invention to only those remote deposits performed using a general purpose computer that is separate from an image capture device.10 The ’974 Application broadly describes the image capture device, noting it can be “a scanner or digital camera.” Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 21, 33. The ’974 Application also indicates that the general purpose computer and image capture device are “customer-controlled” and “electronics that today’s consumers actually own or can easily acquire.” Id. ¶¶ 21, 29, 33; see also id. ¶ 19. In light of these disclosures, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ’974 Application to reasonably convey possession of both integrated and non-integrated configurations. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1215 (CCPA 1981) (explaining that claims with the generic step of “adheringly applying” one layer to an adjacent layer satisfied the written description requirement because “one skilled in the art who read [the] specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered”).” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable
“transmitted copy of the electronic images is a modified version of the electronic images captured with the digital camera, the modified version having a different electronic format than the images captured with the digital camera” recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 25. As explained above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments regarding these limitations. As a result, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that Oakes I, Oakes II, Medina, and Roach qualify as prior art to the challenged claims of the ’605 Patent. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its following assertions: (1) claims 12–23 and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I and Oakes II; (2) claims 12–23 and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, and Medina; (3) claims 1–11, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, and Roach; and (4) claims 1–11, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, Roach, and Medina.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
“transmitted copy of the electronic images is a modified version of the electronic images captured with the digital camera, the modified version having a different electronic format than the images captured with the digital camera” recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 25. As explained above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments regarding these limitations. As a result, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that Oakes I, Oakes II, Medina, and Roach qualify as prior art to the challenged claims of the ’605 Patent. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its following assertions: (1) claims 12–23 and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I and Oakes II; (2) claims 12–23 and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, and Medina; (3) claims 1–11, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, and Roach; and (4) claims 1–11, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, Roach, and Medina.” slip op. at 28
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,013,605 - PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 2, 2022 · IPR2021-01381 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because PNC did not show that Oakes, Medina, or Roach qualified as prior art, so it failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although USAA takes issue with PNC’s approach to claim construction for purposes of this proceeding, it does not appear that USAA disputes PNC’s position that we should apply the constructions for the claim terms “mobile device,” “portable device,” and “digital camera” that USAA proposed in the district court and, eventually, the district court adopted. Compare Ex. 1028, 15, with Ex. 1054, 20. Because there is no dispute between the parties as to the construction of these three claim terms, we need not construe them for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., 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
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Skill in the Art There is sufficient evidence in the current record that enables us to determine the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Noble, PNC argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the relevant field of art . . . at the relevant time (2006–2017) of the ’681 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent field, and two years of experience in software development and programming in the area of image capturing/scanning technology involving transferring and processing of image data to and at a server. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, and vice versa. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 37, 38). In response, USAA states that, “[f]or the purposes of [its] Preliminary Response only, USAA applies the level of skill in the art proposed by [PNC].” Prelim. Resp. 21. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt PNC’s assessment of the level of skill in the art because it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Noble and it is consistent with the ’681 patent.” slip op. at 17
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“conclusion PNC asks us to draw from them. In particular, PNC appears to contend that we should find that the ’247 application does not provide sufficient written description support for the device limitations merely because the scope of the independent claims encompass a configuration that is not described expressly in that document. See Pet. 16, 18–19. But this reflects a misunderstanding of the law—a claim can be broader than the embodiments disclosed. See, e.g., Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1344 (“[A]n applicant is not required to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”); see also Ethicon, 93 F.3d 1582 n.7 (noting that a claim may be “literally infringed by undisclosed embodiments” and yet sufficiently supported); In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1382 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (“We cannot agree with the broad proposition . . . that in every case where the description of the invention in the specification is narrower than that in the claim there has been a failure to fulfill the [written] description requirement in section 112.”). We acknowledge that there are situations where a claim’s breadth results in a lack of written description support, but PNC fails to show that such a situation is present here. In its argument, PNC primarily relies on Reckitt, but this case is unavailing. See Pet. 13–15, 19, 32 (citing Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Ansell Healthcare Prods. LLC, IPR2017-00063, Paper 38 (PTAB Jan. 30, 2018)). First, Reckitt is a non-precedential Board decision that is not binding on this panel.5 Second, and perhaps more importantly, the case is readily distinguishable on its facts. See Prelim. Resp. 30–31 (distinguishing Reckitt from the circumstances presented here). In particular, in Reckitt, the Board panel found that claims lacking a pre-vulcanization requirement lacked written description support in the priority document, noting that “[p]re-vulcanization [was] not some ancillary feature but rather the very heart of the invention.” Reckitt, IPR2017-00063, Paper 38 at 12, 14–15 (emphasis added). However, “[PNC] identifies nothing whatsoever in the ’247 application suggesting that it is important— much less the ‘very heart of the invention’—that the described image capture device be in a housing entirely separate from the described general purpose computer.” Prelim. Resp. 31. In fact, the Petition identifies (and we perceive) no reason why the relative location of the general purpose computer (i.e., the portable/mobile device) and the image capture device” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We have considered Dr. Noble’s supporting testimony, but it suffers from the same deficiencies as PNC’s arguments. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–58. Moreover, in our view, Dr. Noble does not explain sufficiently his conclusions regarding what a person of ordinary skill would have understood the inventor of the ’247 application to possess (or not possess) and, accordingly, we assign little weight to his testimony on this particular issue. E.g., id. ¶¶ 46, 54–57; see TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Conclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.”).” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,013,681 - Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · 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 · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,931,797 - Offshore Technical Compliance, LLC v. Innovative Pressure Testing, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 28, 2021 · IPR2020-00923 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 were held unpatentable as obvious over BOP California, Wodjenski, and Winters; the revised motion to amend proposing claims 19–35 was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“1 The Petition requested review of claims 1–18, but Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claim 18. Pet. 3; Ex. 2001; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“The patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”); Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018). claims on which we instituted trial. Based on the record before us, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claims 1–17 of the ’143 patent are unpatentable; and (2) Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims 19–35 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“B. Testimony of Mr. Anderson Patent Owner contends that the testimony provided by Petitioner’s” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“D. Claim Construction The Board uses “the same claim construction standard that would be” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 9,207,143 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,207,143 - Clearone, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2020 · IPR2019-00683 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–33, and 35–40 are unpatentable; claims 6 and 34 were not shown unpatentable. The motion to amend was granted for substitute claims 57–67.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“establish that it is entitled to the relief requested—namely, that the material sought to be excluded is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s Motion is dismissed as moot, and Patent Owner’s Motion is denied-in-part and dismissed-in-part.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelOther
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art To establish the level of ordinary skill in the art, we look to various” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“For the foregoing reasons, we determine the term “rotationally offset” slip op. at 23
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“date it becomes publicly accessible. In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “Whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication under § 102 is a legal conclusion based on underlying fact findings.” Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “A reference is considered publicly accessible if it was ‘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.’” Id.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 9,565,493 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,565,493 - Canon Inc. / Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Hidehiko NakajimaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,813,625 - Nikon Corporation v. Carl Zeiss AG And ASML Netherlands B.V.Rehearing deniedPTAB · 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 denialPatents in suitUS 9,728,574
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.