- Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 21, 2016 · IPR2015-00163 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4–6 and 19–24 are unpatentable over Koster and Koster with Smith, respectively; claims 11 and 12 were not shown unpatentable, and the motion to amend was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We begin our analysis by addressing the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Horst and Dr. Oklobdzija agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a “bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science” and “two years of experience in the design of multiprocessor systems.” Ex. 1014 ¶ 8; Ex. 2016 ¶ 8. We adopt this proposal as the level of ordinary skill in the art, based on the testimony of the parties’ experts as well as our review of the ’121 patent and the prior art involved in this proceeding.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“evidence in Patent Owner’s Response, we remain unpersuaded that the ’121 patent supports limiting the broadest reasonable construction of “states” solely to cache coherence protocol states. A claim term will be interpreted more narrowly than its ordinary and customary meaning only under two circumstances: (1) the “patentee sets out a definition and acts as [its] own lexicographer,” or (2) the “patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To disavow claim scope, the specification or prosecution history must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature” and the feature is then “deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification” or prosecution history, “might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see Aventis, 675 F.3d at 1330. To disavow claim scope, the patentee may “include[e] in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Aventis, 675 F.3d at 1330 (internal quotations omitted). In this context, it is not sufficient “that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation.” Id.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“The heart of the dispute regarding this limitation, however, lies in whether the disclosure of microprocessors as devices in a system necessarily discloses that those microprocessors are “programmed.” Because the ’121 patent does not illuminate this issue, but instead the parties rely on expert testimony and other extrinsic evidence to support their respective positions, we consider this issue to more properly fall within the category of unpatentability as opposed to claim construction. See Pet. 34–36; PO Resp. 12–19, 25–29; Reply 5–8. Thus, we do not further construe the term “programmed” other than to note that the ’121 patent uses the term in the ordinary and customary manner. See Ex. 1001, 7:49–52, 27:64–28:24, 29:1–3; Ex. 2012, 359; Ex. 2013, 590–91; Ex. 2014, 931.” slip op. at 24
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this proposed ground of unpatentability. Inst. Dec. 19–24. We have reviewed Petitioner’s anticipation arguments and supporting evidence, including Koster’s disclosure, the detailed arguments appearing on pages 31–38 of the Petition, and the testimony of Dr. Horst. Despite the counter-arguments in Patent Owner’s Response, and the evidence cited therein, which we also have considered, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each of claims 4–6 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Koster. Petitioner, however, has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence that Koster anticipates claims 11 and 12.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 7,296,121 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,296,121 - Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 21, 2016 · IPR2015-00159 · APJ Kerry Begley · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 8, and 15–25 are unpatentable: Pong anticipates claims 1–3, 8, 15, 16, and 25, and Pong and Smith render claims 17–24 obvious; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,2 and Amazon.com, Inc. (collectively, “Initial Petitioners”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1–3, 8, and 11–25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,296,121 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’121 patent”). Pet. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we determined the Petition showed a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–3, 8, 11, and 15–25, and instituted an inter partes review of these claims. Paper 12 (“Inst. Dec.”). We, however, did not institute review of claims 12–14, because we determined the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to these claims. Id. at 23–30.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Dr. Horst’s testimony that as a result, from the perspective of the presence bit vector, “every processor indicated as storing a copy of the memory line in its cache is storing a valid copy.” Ex. 1014 ¶ A-11; see Pet. 26–27. In other words, as Dr. Horst testifies, “because a write update protocol always updates caches to keep them valid,” “when a cache line is present[,] it is necessarily valid.” Ex. 1025 ¶ 23; see Reply 17–18. Indeed, Dr. Oklobdzija agrees that because the write update protocol “force[s the caches] to update their value for a cache line every time it changes”—as Pong discloses— “every processor that has the cache line will have the line in a valid state.” Ex. 2016 ¶ 90 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003 ¶ 48; see also Tr. 115:1–23 (Patent Owner conceding that in a write update protocol, any cached copies could be “considered . . . to be valid” because they are “kept usable” and “updated”). Accordingly, based on Pong’s disclosures, as well as the explanatory testimony of Dr. Horst in addition to Dr. Oklobdzija, we determine that in the write update protocol, a set bit in Pong’s presence bit vector represents that the corresponding cached copy is present and valid.” slip op. at 44
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. OBVIOUSNESS OVER PONG AND SMITH We turn to the instituted obviousness ground alleging that claims 17–” slip op. at 73
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“addresses Koster—a prior art U.S. patent of record as Exhibit 1009 that was filed on July 13, 2004 and issued on April 13, 2004—Patent Owner’s failure to demonstrate enablement of the proposed substitute claims results in a failure to demonstrate novelty and non-obviousness of the proposed substitute claims over the prior art of record. When arguing how the limitations of the proposed substitute claims distinguish them from the disclosures of the references of record, Patent Owner’s Motion addresses Koster only by asserting that “[a]s to . . . Koster . . . , because, as discussed above, all of the substitute claims find support in the [’]347 Application, . . . Koster . . . is not prior art to any of the proposed substitute claims.” Mot. 22. Because Patent Owner does not persuade us that the proposed substitute claims are enabled by the disclosure in the ’347 Application, we find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s suggestion that the proposed substitute claims are entitled to the filing date of the ’347 Application. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“For a patent to claim priority from the filing date of its provisional application, . . . the specification of the provisional must . . . enable an ordinarily skilled artisan to practice the invention claimed in the non-provisional application.”) (internal citation and quotations omitted); Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The earlier application must contain a written description of the subject matter of the interference count, and must meet the enablement requirement.”); see also Novo Nordisk Pharm., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[If] the 1983 PCT application was . . . not enabled, Novo would not be able to rely upon the application’s priority date to overcome the Brewer patent.”). Accordingly, we also find unpersuasive Patent Owner’s assertion basis for asserting that the proposed substitute claims are patentable over Koster (by itself or in combination with other references of record), we conclude that Patent Owner has not met its burden of demonstrating patentability of the proposed substitute claims over the references of record. See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (upholding Board’s requirement that patent owner “show patentable distinction [of the substitute claims] over the prior art of record”); Opp. 1–4. Thus, Patent Owner has not met its burden for proposed substitute claims 26–34.” slip op. at 84
Patent outcomesUS 7,296,121 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,296,121 - Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01353 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4–6 are unpatentable as anticipated by Koster, claims 19–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Koster and Smith, and claims 11–12 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We begin our analysis by addressing the level of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Horst and Dr. Oklobdzija agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a “bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science” and “two years of experience in the design of multiprocessor systems.” Ex. 1014 ¶ 8; Ex. 2016 ¶ 8. We adopt this proposal as the level of ordinary skill in the art, based on the testimony of the parties’ experts as well as our review of the ’121 patent and the prior art involved in this proceeding.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“For the reasons discussed below, however, despite the arguments and evidence in Patent Owner’s Response, we remain unpersuaded that the ’121 patent supports limiting the broadest reasonable construction of “states” solely to cache coherence protocol states. A claim term will be interpreted more narrowly than its ordinary and customary meaning only under two circumstances: (1) the “patentee sets out a definition and acts as [its] own lexicographer,” or (2) the “patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To disavow claim scope, the specification or prosecution history must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature” and the feature is then “deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification” or prosecution history, “might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see Aventis, 675 F.3d at 1330. To disavow claim scope, the patentee may “include[e] in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Aventis, 675 F.3d at 1330 (internal quotations omitted). In this context, it is not sufficient “that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation.” Id.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“The heart of the dispute regarding this limitation, however, lies in whether the disclosure of microprocessors as devices in a system necessarily discloses that those microprocessors are “programmed.” Because the ’121 patent does not illuminate this issue, but instead the parties rely on expert testimony and other extrinsic evidence to support their respective positions, we consider this issue to more properly fall within the category of unpatentability as opposed to claim construction. See Pet. 34–36; PO Resp. 12–19, 25–29; Reply 5–8. Thus, we do not further construe the term “programmed” other than to note that the ’121 patent uses the term in the ordinary and customary manner. See Ex. 1001, 7:49–52, 27:64–28:24, 29:1–3; Ex. 2012, 359; Ex. 2013, 590–91; Ex. 2014, 931.” slip op. at 24
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner fails to proffer evidence sufficient to rebut Patent Owner’s evidence that Koster’s disclosure of a microprocessor does not necessarily disclose that the microprocessor is programmed. Dr. Horst, in his original declaration, asserts that “a requesting microprocessor must be programmed to complete a memory transaction after receiving a first number of responses to a first data request.” Ex. 1014 ¶¶ D-17–D-18. This assertion, however, is conclusory, and does not sufficiently explain why the microprocessor must be programmed or exclude possibilities other than programming. See id.; PO Resp. 27. In particular, Dr. Horst’s original declaration testimony provides no discussion or explanation as to whether a microprocessor composed solely of hardwired logic would necessarily be programmed and whether the functionality described in Koster could not be implemented using hardwired logic. See Ex. 1014 ¶¶ D-17–D-18; PO Resp. 27.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 7,296,121 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,296,121 - Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB, And Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. v. Memory Integrity, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2016 · IPR2015-00158 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 19–24 are unpatentable: claim 24 as obvious over Koster, and claims 19–23 as obvious over Koster and Kuskin; the motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“evidence in Patent Owner’s Response, we remain unpersuaded that the ’121 patent supports limiting the broadest reasonable construction of “states” solely to cache coherence protocol states. A claim term will be interpreted more narrowly than its ordinary and customary meaning only under two circumstances: (1) the “patentee sets out a definition and acts as [its] own lexicographer,” or (2) the “patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To disavow claim scope, the specification or prosecution history must “make[] clear that the invention does not include a particular feature” and the feature is then “deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification” or prosecution history, “might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see Aventis, 675 F.3d at 1330. To disavow claim scope, the patentee may “include[] in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Aventis, 675 F.3d at 1330 (internal quotations omitted). In this context, it is not sufficient “that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation.” Id.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petition, Patent Owner’s Response, and Petitioner’s Reply. Based on that review, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that all of the limitations of claim 24 are taught by, or rendered obvious in view of the teachings of Koster, and that claim 24, considered as a whole, would have been obvious over Koster. Pet. 19–20, 25; PO Resp. 1–16; Pet. Reply 1–8. We find Petitioner’s citations and arguments persuasive, and we adopt them as the basis for our decision. Pet. 19–20, 25; Pet. Reply 1–8. We are persuaded that Koster’s tags and shadow tag memory teach the claim language “probe filtering information representative of states associated with selected ones of the cache memories.” For the reasons explained in Section II.A.1.a supra, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim language requires cache coherency states. Additionally, as discussed in Section II.A.1.a supra, Patent Owner does not persuade us that the examples of tags and state information discussed in the ’121 patent constitute a clear disavowal of tags as necessarily excluded from state information. See PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:67–8:4; 13:44–14:47; Fig. 7). Furthermore, Patent Owner’s argument that tags are not state information fails to recognize that the claimed probe filtering information does not have to be states, it need only be “representative of states associated with selected ones of the cache memories.” Ex. 1001, 31:5–6 (emphasis added); see Tr. 74:11– 15, 77:2–9. Patent Owner does not dispute that Koster’s shadow tag memory and its tags indicate where specific data is cached. See PO Resp. 15; Ex. 1001, at [57], 6:9–38, 6:61–7:16, 7:25–33, Figs. 9, 10; Pet. 20; Pet. Reply 5–6; Ex. 1013 ¶ 19; Ex. 1015 ¶ 20; Ex. 1016, 186:17–24. Additionally, Koster uses the information provided by the shadow tag memory and its tags in controlling where to send data requests. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:18–32; Pet. 20; Ex. 1013 ¶ 19. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Koster’s shadow tag memory and its tags are representative of whether selected ones of the cache memories contain specific data, which is representative of the states of those cache memories. See, e.g., Ex. 3001, 497–498 (setting forth definition of “state” as “[t]he condition at a particular time of any of numerous elements of computing—a device, a communication channel, a network station, a program, a bit, or other element—used to report on or to control computer operations.”); Pet. 20; Pet. Reply 1–8; Ex. 1013 ¶ 19; Ex. 1015 ¶ 20; Ex. 1016, 186:17–24.” slip op. at 25
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“although Patent Owner points to several lines and one figure as describing the limitation, these disclosures simply identify the existence of a cache coherency controller with both a coherent and non-coherent protocol interface without providing any detail of how such a cache coherency controller would be implemented. See Ex. 2020, 12:20–23, 13:11–17; Ex. 2006, 12:12–15, 13:4–10; Ex. 1001, 7:44–48, 8:5–14. Figure 3 represents a concept of a cache coherence interface with two interfaces—but lacks any details that would show one skilled in the art how to make or use a cache coherence interface with two interfaces. See Ex. 2020, Fig. 3; Ex. 2006, Fig. 3. The specification describes Figure 3 as a “diagrammatic representation” of a cache coherence controller, and does not purport to show details of how the two interfaces would be implemented together in such a controller. See Ex. 2020, 5:17, 12:28–13:21, Ex. 2006, 6:16, 12:20– 13:14; Ex. 1001, 3:32–33, 7:53–8:19. This is supported by the testimony of Dr. Oklobdzija, who testified that Figure 3 (along with Figures 2 and 17 of the ’121 patent) “point[] . . . to a non-coherent interface and the interconnections,” but do not provide details regarding how to implement a coherent and non-coherent interface and instead “le[ave] someone . . . with ordinary skill in the art to . . . figure it out.” Ex. 1016, 90:5–93:1, 95:14– 96:10. Dr. Oklobdzija also agreed that “one of ordinary skill would not have already had in their knowledge how to build a system with [both] interface[s].” Id. at 90:5–17.” slip op. at 37
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 2020, 12:22–14:21; Ex. 2006, 11:14–12:14; Ex. 1001, 7:44–8:19. This general description fails to provide a structure or description of how a person having ordinary skill in the art would make or use a cache coherence controller with both types of interfaces. The most detailed language— “[i]n one embodiment, the cache coherence controller 230 is a specially configured programmable chip such as a programmable logic device or a field programmable gate array” and “[a]ccording to various embodiments, each interface 307 and 311 is implemented either as a full crossbar or as separate receive and transmit units using components such as multiplexers and buffers”—does not specifically describe how to implement the system. Instead, as confirmed by Dr. Oklobzjia, the sentence related to the cache coherence controller 230 “gives kind of [a] suggestion to – that this can be implemented as a programmable chip” and the sentence describing implementation of the interfaces is simply an “implementation hint.” Ex. 1016, 100:18–102:20. According to Dr. Oklobzjia, the implementation details are “up to the engineers to – to figure out further.” Id. at 101:10–20. Indeed, Dr. Oklobdzija testified that prior to the filing date of the ’121 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have known to use both a coherent interface and a non-coherent interface at once. Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 11–12. Specifically, Dr. Oklobdzija testifies that, a reference that “reflects the state of the art of coherent and non-coherent interfaces” as of the alleged effective filing date of the ’121 patent indicated that a system could use only one or the other of a coherent or non-coherent interface, but not both. Id. ¶ 12. Noticeably absent in Patent Owner’s Motion is reference to any detailed discussion in the ’121 patent of the how the cache coherence controller would operate with both interfaces at once, let alone such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art, to make and use the system. Given the testimony of Dr. Oklobdzija, we cannot determine that Figure 3 and the few corresponding lines of description apprise one of ordinary skill how to make and use a cache coherence controller with both a coherent and non-coherent protocol interface. See Automotive Techs. Int’l v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1281–85 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that electronic sensors were not enabled because the specification’s general description failed to provide a structure or description of how a person having ordinary skill in the art would make or use the sensor). This is true despite Dr. Oklobdzija’s conclusory statement to the contrary. Ex. 2042 (Reply Declaration) ¶ 7 (“As I noted in my deposition, based simply on my review during the deposition itself, I believed, and I continue to believe, that the specification of the ’121 Patent contains a number of ‘implementation hint[s]’ which would enable one of skill in the art to practice the coherent protocol interface’ and ‘non-coherent protocol interface’ limitations without undue experimentation.”). “It is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.” Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although the knowledge of one skilled in the art is relevant, the novel aspect of an invention must be enabled in the patent. As noted above, according to Dr. Oklobdzija, prior to filing of the ’121 patent, it was suggested that a system could use only one or the other of a coherent or non-coherent interface, but not both. Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 11–12. Given that the allegedly novel aspect of the invention is a cache coherence controller that uses both interfaces, which was unknown to a person of ordinary skill at the time, it is insufficient to merely provide “implementation hints” using known technologies to create that novel cache coherence controller. As was the case in Genentech, the portions of the specification relied upon by Patent Owner here provide “only a starting point, a direction for further research” on using a probe filtering unit with both protocol interfaces; it does not provide guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art on how to make or use such system. 108 F.3d at 1366. Patent Owner, thus, fails to show that the specification provides “reasonable detail” sufficient to enable use of a probe filtering unit is coupled to a coherent protocol interface and a non-coherent protocol interface. We conclude that Patent Owner has not met its burden of showing that the protocol interface limitation is properly enabled under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 7,296,121 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,296,121 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Affinity Labs Of Texas, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 28, 2016 · IPR2014-01184 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 5–14 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over the prior art combinations addressed in the decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “streaming” is often used in the context of the immediate processing and playback of audio information. -01181 Dec. on Inst. 7. The ordinary meaning of the term, however, does not require the immediate playback of streaming audio information, and the portions of the ’641 patent identified by Patent Owner do not demonstrate with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision that a narrower claim definition should apply. For example, although the discussion in the ’641 patent of using high-speed communications for streaming an Internet radio station supports Patent Owner’s argument that “streaming audio” may be played immediately as it arrives, Ex. 1001, 7:3–7, the ’641 patent also discloses “downloading” “streaming audio” and “streaming Internet Broadcasts.” Id. at 3:67–4:1, 8:31–35, 17:1–2, 18:1–5. Thus, the disclosures of the ’641 patent are consistent with the dictionary definition of the term “streaming,” which contemplates the transfer of “streaming audio” as a constant stream of data for either immediate or delayed playback. Accordingly, we construe the term “streaming audio signal” as “an audio signal that is transferred in a continuous stream.”” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“3. remaining claim terms Patent Owner also proposes constructions for the terms wireless telephone device, a signal representing at least a portion of a song, while, and portable electronic device. PO Resp. 5–6, 8–10, 11–12. Upon review of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments, we determine that construction of these additional claim terms is not required for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the addition of well-known rechargeable battery technology (as disclosed in Herrod) in the device of Abecassis would have been obvious, at a minimum, to eliminate the need to periodically replace the batteries in the Abecassis device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Abecassis and Herrod are in different fields of endeavor, as both references relate to the communication of data using a cellular phone.8” slip op. at 17
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Ipsis verbis disclosure is not necessary, however, to satisfy the written description requirement of section 112. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Thus, we must also determine whether, despite the lack of express disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Patent Owner was in possession of the invention set forth in claim 8. Id. In conducting this analysis, we are cognizant that “a description which renders obvious a claimed invention is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of that invention.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Dr. Wolf recites the same disclosures as Patent Owner and concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ’812 application demonstrates possession of an invention wherein a radio dial transmitted to a recipient device could be used to cause the transmission of selected information to the recipient device. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 287, 290. Dr. Wolf does not address, however, the specific configuration set forth in claim 8 of the ’641 patent. In particular, Dr. Wolf does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the recited disclosures that the patentee was possession of a method of streaming a song from a portable electronic device to a recipient device in response to the selection of a selectable menu item “presented on a recipient device display.” In contrast, Dr. Quackenbush analyzes the disclosures of the ’641 patent in detail and concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art, upon review of the priority disclosures as a whole, would not understand the patentee to be in possession of the invention set forth in claim 8. Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 189–207. Specifically, Dr. Quackenbush concludes that the disclosures of the ’812 application and the ’641 Specification focus on the transmission of data from a storage device and digital engine to an electronic device, and not from a portable electronic device to a recipient device, in response to a selection of a selectable menu item presented on a recipient device display. Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 193–203. Upon careful review of both Dr. Wolf’s and Dr. Quackenbush’s” slip op. at 52
Patent outcomesUS 8,532,641 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,532,641 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Affinity Labs Of Texas, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 28, 2016 · IPR2014-01182 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 5–14 are unpatentable under § 103 over the prior-art combinations addressed in the decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the term “streaming” is often used in the context of the immediate processing and playback of audio information. -01181 Dec. on Inst. 7. The ordinary meaning of the term, however, does not require the immediate playback of streaming audio information, and the portions of the ’641 patent identified by Patent Owner do not demonstrate with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision that a narrower claim definition should apply. For example, although the discussion in the ’641 patent of using high-speed communications for streaming an Internet radio station supports Patent Owner’s argument that “streaming audio” may be played immediately as it arrives, Ex. 1001, 7:3–7, the ’641 patent also discloses “downloading” “streaming audio” and “streaming Internet Broadcasts.” Id. at 3:67–4:1, 8:31–35, 17:1–2, 18:1–5. Thus, the disclosures of the ’641 patent are consistent with the dictionary definition of the term “streaming,” which contemplates the transfer of “streaming audio” as a constant stream of data for either immediate or delayed playback. Accordingly, we construe the term “streaming audio signal” as “an audio signal that is transferred in a continuous stream.”” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelOther
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that the addition of well-known rechargeable battery technology (as disclosed in Herrod) in the device of Abecassis would have been obvious, at a minimum, to eliminate the need to periodically replace the batteries in the Abecassis device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Abecassis and Herrod are in different fields of endeavor, as both references relate to the communication of data using a cellular phone.8” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Decided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s identification of corresponding structure and its argument that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply to the term “means for recharging the internal battery” should have been in Petition, and not presented for the first time in reply. PO Resp. 69; Tr. 84:12–85:14; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Moreover, Petitioner does not provide adequate support for its broad identification of corresponding structure in the ’641 patent. For example, we are directed to no disclosure in the ’641 patent indicating that any “battery recharger” may recharge the battery of the device. Thus, we do not adopt Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Patent Owner does not propose a construction for the term “means for recharging the internal battery.” See PO Resp. 5–11, 69–70. The ’641 patent discloses, however, that interface 904 and mount 511 allow for recharging the electronic device using an interface that provides both recharging power and data communications. Ex. 1101, 13:15–32, 18:27–39, 20:52–57. As Petitioner provides persuasive evidence to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to add both rechargeable batteries and a USB interface—which provides both recharging power and data connectivity—to the device of Abecassis, under either Petitioner’s proposed construction or the structure for recharging the internal battery set forth in the ’641 patent, the prior art discloses the limitations of claim 14. Thus, we are persuaded that claim 14 would have been obvious over Abecassis, Herrod, and Chennakeshu.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 8,532,641 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,532,641 - PTAB · Jul 23, 2015 · IPR2015-00158 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Sony’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for all challenged claims because the petition failed to establish the asserted priority-date and Luick limitations.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“persuaded that the probe filtering information disclosed in the ’347 application does relate to the probe filtering information in the challenged claims. Dec. 17. Specifically, we held that we were persuaded that the “probe filtering information” disclosed in the ’347 application constitutes “probe filtering information” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that language in the challenged claims. Id. The Petition did not argue, as the request now suggests, that the challenged claims are not entitled to the filing date of the ’347 application because the ’347 application does not provide written description support for the full scope of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the request identifies a matter in the Petition that we overlooked or misapprehended.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Table (“GCT”) constitutes “probe filtering information,” as recited in independent claims 1, 16, and 25. See Pet. 34–35. Our Decision denied the claim challenges based on Luick, holding that Petitioner had not addressed adequately the limitation in the independent claims that the “probe filtering information” is “representative of states associated with selected ones of the cache memories.” Dec. 32–33. Specifically, our Decision explained that the Petition did not persuade us that Luick or any of the other cited references teach this limitation. Id. at 33–34. Our Decision noted that we were persuaded that Luick’s GCT contains information about which nodes contain shared data blocks, but does not contain information about whether those nodes have the data blocks in memory 105 or cache 107. Id. at 33. Our Decision further explained that it was “not facially apparent that the information in Luick’s GCT is ‘representative of states associated with selected ones of the cache memories.’” Id. Additionally, our Decision noted, the Petition neither provided any explanation showing that Luick’s GCT contained information “representative of states associated with selected ones of the cache memories,” nor asserted that any of the other cited references teach this limitation. Id. at 33–34.” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Petition’s argument that the definition of “probe filtering information” changed between the ’347 application and the ’161 application. See, e.g., Dec. 15–16. The Petition suggested that the effect of the alleged definition change is that the probe filtering information disclosed in the ’347 application bears no relationship to the claims of the ’121 patent. See Pet. 6 (“the definition of ‘probe filtering information’ changed between the [’347 application] and the ’121 Patent such that the definition in the [’347 application] is admittedly unrelated to the claims of the ’121 Patent”). In our Decision, we held that, contrary to the Petition’s argument, we were persuaded that the probe filtering information disclosed in the ’347 application does relate to the probe filtering information in the challenged claims. Dec. 17. Specifically, we held that we were persuaded that the “probe filtering information” disclosed in the ’347 application constitutes “probe filtering information” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that language in the challenged claims. Id. The Petition did not argue, as the request now suggests, that the challenged claims are not entitled to the filing date of the ’347 application because the ’347 application does not provide written description support for the full scope of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the request identifies a matter in the Petition that we overlooked or misapprehended.” slip op. at 4
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 7,296,121
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.