• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Maxell LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00777 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 16–27 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to account for limitations 16[b] and 16[i] and their counterparts across the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Human Computer Interaction, or a related technical field, with at least one year of experience working in the field of user interfaces and/or content management.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2040 ¶ 53). The Decision on Institution adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 10. We find Patent Owner’s stated level to be less precise than that proposed by Petitioner in that the modifier “at least” used by Patent owner imposes no upper bound on the amount of experience possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, Patent Owner states: “The difference between the Board’s definition and Patent Owner’s (EX2040. ¶53) does not change the arguments set forth herein.” PO Resp. 11. Thus, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.4 4 All of our findings and conclusions would still be the same, however, had we applied Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In its Reply, Petitioner does not assert that the district court’s construction is incorrect. We agree with Patent Owner that the district court’s construction is better than Petitioner’s proposed construction, because for reasons indicated by Patent Owner, which are not disputed by Petitioner, settings in the computer, e.g., dedicated folders for each user are the user profiles, rather than simply data alone of any kind. Further, when asked about the appropriateness of the district court’s construction, counsel for Petitioner expressed that Petitioner has no objection to the Board’s adopting the district court’s construction for “user profile”: JUDGE LEE: So, you’d be fine with just going with the District Court’s construction? MR. HEINTZ: Yes, Your Honor. Tr. 15:22–24. For the foregoing reasons, we adopt the district court’s construction for “user profile,” i.e., “a collection of settings and information associated with a user.”” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “PO Resp. 30–31 (Figure 26 omitted). In its Reply, Petitioner still does not provide an articulated reason for placing user profile selection buttons, labeled with user names, within Horn’s panes 2601 or 2602. Reply 12–14. Although Horn does describe personalized profile, Petitioner points to no disclosure of Horn as to how a user would have selected his or her own profile from among a plurality of user profiles. Petitioner presents no reason for placing these user profile selection buttons, labeled with user names, gleaned from or suggested by Baumgartner, within either pane 2601 or pane 2602 in Horn’s workspace view. Further, pane 2602 contains “a list of all collections defined by MFS and the user,” and pane 2601 lists the source examined by the user to create his or her collections. Ex. 1005, 19:41–46. That disclosure suggests the contents of panes 2601 and 2602 are tied to one particular user. No rational basis is articulated by Petitioner to place user profile selection buttons within these panes which appear to be in the profile space of one user. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not adequately accounted for limitation 16[b].” slip op. at 22

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

    “The test for sufficiency of a written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is whether the earlier application’s disclosure “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The specification must “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.” Id. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explained: One shows that one is “in possession” of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious. Id. (“[T]he applicant must also convey to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.”) (emphasis in original). One does that by such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention. Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, see Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038, 34 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed.Cir.1995) (“[T]he prior application need not describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims. . . .”), the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,017,815 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,017,815
• Intel Corporation v. Ax Wireless, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2024 · IPR2023-01146 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show Huang or Sun was prior art to claims 1–10, which it argued were obvious over those references.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For purposes of institution, Petition bears the burden to establish, by a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the cited art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Where unpatentability rests on a document that is prior art to a challenged patent but for that patent’s priority claim to an earlier effective filing date, such a priority claim is not presumed valid. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the USPTO does not routinely determine whether such priority claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120).” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a Master’s degree in electrical engineer-ing or a similar discipline, and/or at least two to three years of experience working or conducting research in wireless commu-nication protocols, or an equivalent combination of education and experience. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 72). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 6. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’146 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached

    “action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2022). The Board is required to construe “only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner and Patent Owner, in extended briefing, contest the construction of the phrase “detecting, from the received wireless packet, the second header field which repeats the first header field,” as it appears in claim 1. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 1; Pet. Reply 3; PO Sur-Reply 3. However, both parties appear to agree that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term should apply. See Pet. 6; Prelim. Resp. 15. Further, Petitioner has clarified that its statements as to the scope of the term are directed to its assertions that the ’146 patent lacks support for the claimed subject matter in its parent applications. Pet. Reply. 5–6. Consequently, we address claim construction arguments in their context of the parties’ priority contentions. See infra at II.D.1.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner has shown sufficient written description support for the claims, including the disputed “detecting” limitation. The “decode-to-learn- ‘D’” description in the specification of the ’146 patent and in the provisional application to which the ’146 patent claims priority describe a specific procedure for the claimed “detecting, from the received wireless packet, the second header field which repeats the first header field.”3 See Ex. 1001, 2 Petitioner specifically asserts that Huang qualifies under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). Pet. 2, 19 (“by more than a year”). However, Huang’s patent issuance date of April 28, 2020 does not qualify under § 102(b) because it is less than one year before the December 29, 2020 filing date of the ’146 patent. Nevertheless, Petitioner has made an effective showing that Sun would qualify as prior art sufficient to shift the burden of production to Patent Owner. 3 Patent Owner does not explicitly show support for each of the applications in the priority chain. Patent Owner also cites to a Pre-Grant Publication rather than the underlying application despite the fact that such a Publication may include amendments to the originally filed application that would not evidence written description. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.215 (a); MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE §1121; Ex. 2003, 7 (showing amendments 3:1–11; Ex. 2001 ¶ 35; Ex. 1008, 5–6; PO Sur-Reply 6. The “D” information is received in the wireless packet, and the receiver determines therefrom whether there is a second header field that repeats the first header field. See Ex. 1008, 5–6; PO Sur-Reply 6. The written description further includes descriptions of other embodiments for receiver detection with variable repetition, including detection “without knowing D a priori.” Ex. 1001, 2:18–3:59.” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,212,146
• Truist Bank v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00144 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Oakes supports the claimed mobile device, is not prior art, and the petition therefore did not meet the reasonable-likelihood threshold.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes trial on behalf of the Director”).” slip op. at 2

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

    “Prelim. Resp. 24–26. We determine that this argument and evidence is more persuasive and better supported than Petitioner’s contrary arguments and evidence. We determine that Patent Owner’s position that a skilled artisan in the relevant time frame would have found clear support for the full-scope of the invention claimed including a “mobile device” as recited and construed as a “handheld computing device” is well-supported. In contrast, Petitioner’s argument and evidence are based on an improper claim construction and lack substantial supporting evidence. For these reasons, we determine that Oakes does provide written description support for “mobile device” as recited in the challenged claims of the ’432 patent and the ’432 patent is entitled to claim priority to the filing date of the application that issued as Oakes. As a result, Oakes is not prior art to the ’432 patent and all the challenges in the Petition fail because they rely on Oakes as prior art.” slip op. at 28

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

    “On this record and for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, we construe “mobile device” as “handheld computing device,” because both parties ask us to adopt the District Court’s claim construction. 8 We do not 8 Petitioner does not dispute that we should “adopt[ ] the claim constructions [Patent Owner] advanced and the Court adopted in [the PNC Litigation].” include the phrase “excluding laptops” as part of this construction as the arguments in support of this construction in the Petition are contradicted by the evidence and Petitioner has otherwise failed to support the inclusion of this phrase in the construction.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification of the ’432 patent and the cited prior art. For that reason, and in order to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,482,432
• Sharkninja Operating LLC / Sharkninja Management LLC et al. v. Irobot CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2022 · PGR2021-00079 · APJ Jason W Melvin · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable under § 112(a) because the specification does not describe a floor plan that distinguishes carpeted from noncarpeted areas.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or electrical engineering or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in the design and implementation of robotics and embedded systems.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). Patent Owner does not dispute this definition. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the specification.” slip op. at 6

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

    “The claim language establishes two distinct (and mutually exclusive) types of areas: “areas with carpeting” and “areas that do not have carpeting.” Ex. 1001, 19:17–:18, 20:12–:13. Those areas, as defined, provide the antecedent basis for the later claim language requiring the areas be “identifi[ed]” in the displayed floor plan (“an identification of the areas with carpeting and the areas that do not have carpeting”). We conclude that identifying—ascertaining the identity of—two distinct types of areas requires an indication to distinguish one type of area from the other. That conclusion flows from the claim language that establishes two types of areas and then refers back to those types when requiring a floor plan that includes identification of them. Indeed, the claim as a whole depends on a distinction between the two types of areas. After establishing that the map used for navigation indicates the two types of areas, the claim requires that the robot sense its location relative to the areas and adjust its cleaning behavior based on that location. Id. at 19:16–:25, 20:11–:19. Patent Owner’s proposed construction—that “identification of the areas with carpeting and the areas that do not have carpeting” does not require distinguishing between the two types of areas—would contravene the claim’s consistent approach to the areas.3” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable

    “Under the construction adopted above, we conclude the specification lacks written-description support for a “displayed floor plan comprising an identification of the areas with carpeting and the areas that do not have carpeting.” As discussed, our construction requires that the floor plan itself allow users to distinguish between areas with carpeting and areas that do not have carpeting. Neither Figure 22 nor any textual description supports that capability, and Patent Owner does not argue otherwise. See PO Resp. 18–23.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,990,110 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,990,110
• Cradlepoint, Inc. / Sierra Wireless, Inc. et al. v. Sisvel International S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01102 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 15–20, 30, and 31 are unpatentable as obvious over Qualcomm and TS25.322; claims 6–14 and 21–29 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 32–35, 45–49, 59, and 60 were denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have a degree in electrical engineering or similar discipline, with at least three years of relevant industry or research experience in telecommunication, including familiarity with cellular communications technologies,” that this person “would also have familiarity with WCDMA,” and that “[t]his definition is approximate,” as “more education may substitute for industry experience or vice versa.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 30–34). We adopted Petitioner’s proposal at institution. See Decision 7–8. In its Response, Patent Owner “proposes that a person having ordinary skill at the time of invention—August 23, 2005—in the relevant art would be one with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer sciences, or telecommunications, along with three to five or more years of practical experience in the field” and that “[a] combination of more experience in the field and less education or more education and less experience in the field would also suffice.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 27). Patent Owner asserts that “[a]lthough [its] proposed level of skill in the art is similar to Petitioners’ proposal, Patent Owner includes the qualification that a combination of more experience in the field and less education, or more education and less experience in the field would also suffice.” Id. The parties do not argue that the formulation of the level of skill in the art affects any issue in this case, and we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s formulation, which we find to be generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’443 patent and the prior art, and which includes that “more education may substitute for industry experience or vice versa.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “length indicator” to mean “a single length indicator that provides two pieces of information: (1) that a first data octet of the protocol data unit is a first octet of a first service data unit; and (2) that at least one other octet of the protocol data unit is the last octet of another service data unit.” See Prelim. Resp. 9–10. We agreed with Patent Owner that the specification’s description of a single length indicator that conveys both types of information and the arguments made during prosecution that the claims required a “single LI” or “the same length indicator” to include both types of information were sufficient to support a construction that required a single length indicator to include both pieces of information. See Decision 9. Although it did not propose a construction in the Petition, Petitioner now argues that “the claim language uses the indefinite article ‘a’ to modify ‘length indicator’” and that “[p]recedent is well settled that ‘an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” Pet. Reply 5 (citing KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). While we agree with Petitioner that “a” may mean “one or more,” that simply means that the addition of more length indicators would not be excluded from the scope of the claim. Petitioner does not explain, and we do not see, how that affects the meaning of “length indicator” itself and, for the reasons argued by Patent Owner and adopted at institution, we maintain the earlier construction of “length indicator” as “a single length indicator that provides two pieces of information: (1) that a first data octet of the protocol data unit is a first octet of a first service data unit; and (2) that at least one other octet of the protocol data unit is the last octet of another service data unit.” See Decision 8; Prelim. Resp. 9–12; PO Resp. 10–13. slip op. at 11

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

    “We also observe that, although Patent Owner characterizes this issue as one based on “teaching away” (see, e.g., PO Resp. 3; PO Sur-Reply 15– 16), the argument is not about teaching away because Patent Owner is not pointing us to any specific teaching in the prior art, or elsewhere, that would counsel against the proposed modification. Patent Owner is not arguing that something in the prior art disparages or discourages the use of one bit of an LI as a flag. Instead, Patent Owner is arguing that one of skill in the art would not pursue the Qualcomm approach because to do so would mean accepting other drawbacks that would flow from the use of the flag. In any event, we credit Patent Owner’s evidence that dedicating a bit of the LI for use as a flag would reduce the length that could be represented by the remaining bits of the LI and cause SDUs to be divided into more PDUs. See, e.g., Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 30, 32. However, the record also shows that use of the flag would provide a specific advantage, as described in Qualcomm. See Ex. 1006, 3; Ex. 1007 ¶ 253. This is the motivation advanced by Petitioner which, notably, Patent Owner does not dispute. We conclude that, even if Patent Owner is correct that the proposal in Qualcomm would reduce the permitted PDU size from 128 octets to 64, the change would merely be something a skilled artisan would need to weigh against the advantages that the Qualcomm technique would provide. Patent Owner may be correct that the reduced lengths would, in the end, render the modified system unsuitable for certain applications or for adoption in a standard. That would not, however, make the modification nonobvious, particularly where the exact change proposed in the combination was suggested by individuals working in the field, as evidenced by Qualcomm itself.7 The record shows that at least some of those working in the field, at the time of the invention, believed that the advantages of Qualcomm’s approach would outweigh the reduced lengths.” slip op. at 20

  • BurdenMixed

    “In TS25.322, the value “0000000” is a predefined, special value used to indicate that “[t]he previous RLC PDU was exactly filled with the last segment of an RLC SDU and there is no ‘Length Indicator’ that indicates the end of the RLC SDU in the previous RLC PDU.” See Ex. 1005, 36–37. However, although Qualcomm specifically contemplates implementing its flag scheme by “[r]e-arrang[ing] special LI values as they are now coded on less number of bits” (Ex. 1006, 4), the Petition did not argue a combination that includes modification of the special LIs for the independent claims. Instead, Petitioner relied on Qualcomm’s proposal to modify ordinary LIs that indicate the end of SDUs. See, e.g., Pet. 71–72 (describing and illustrating modification of the LI that identified the end of SDU 1: “[t]he green modified LI indicates that a first data octet of PDU is a first octet of SDU1 and another octet of the PDU is the last octet of SDU1”); Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 261–262. Petitioner’s argument with respect to these claims is thus not consistent with the argument it advanced for the independent claims from which these claims depend. Petitioner cannot reasonably rely on one type of prior art LI as the “length indicator” of claim 1, but then shift to a different type of prior art LI when addressing the very same “length indicator” recited in a dependent claim. Moreover, Petitioner fails to explain how or why the special LI “0000000” that is used to indicate the layout of the previous PDU could reasonably be used to also indicate the layout of the current PDU in which the LI appears. For example, if the previous PDU did not meet the condition identified by the “0000000” special value, then the LI would not appear in the next PDU even if that next PDU had a first SDU that ended in that PDU. For these reasons, Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation or argument to establish obviousness of claims 6 and 21.9” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,894,443 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,894,443
• Sharkninja Operating LLC / Sharkninja Management LLC et al. v. Irobot CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2021 · PGR2021-00065 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied PGR on all challenged claims because the petition did not show unpatentability and the claims were not PGR-eligible.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the patent must enable a skilled artisan to practice the invention without undue experimentation. Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs, Inc., 720 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “An enablement analysis begins with the disclosure in the specification.” Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “It is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, 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).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Claim 1 recites an apparatus and requires the receiving system be configured to “autonomously identify a hot spot,” which requires that the device perform the action itself. Thus, the claim language excludes a user performing the claimed identification.6 The question is whether the Specification supports that language. Patent Owner argues that the language in the Specification—“pre- identified . . . prior to operating the robotic device”—includes “during a prior operation of the robot (e.g., during a past cleaning operation).” Prelim. Resp. 33–35 (citing Ex. 1001, 27:42–28:11). We determine that this meaning is supported by the Specification. As Patent Owner contends, the Specification discloses identifying “hot spot” cells during an operation and using those cells to maneuver the device both during the same operation and also in a later operation. Id. Thus, a reasonable interpretation of “prior to operating the robotic device” includes “during a past cleaning mission of the 6 In an Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary, the Examiner wrote that he and the Applicant’s attorney “discussed, including specifying that the identify step is performed autonomously, or without human input.” Ex. 1001, 212 (emphasis added). In the Applicant’s attorney’s interview summary of the same conversation that was included with the claim amendment adding the “autonomously identify” limitation, the Examiner’s characterization of the meaning of “autonomously” was not disputed. Id. at 225. The Applicant relied on the addition of the “autonomously identify” limitation to the claims to distinguish the cited art but did not discuss its meaning. Id. at 226 (“Allen fails to describe autonomously identifying a hot spot. Independent claim 13 [issued claim 1] is therefore allowable over Taylor and Allen.”). However, both Petitioner and Patent Owner acknowledge that Allen (US Patent No. 5,995,884) discloses a user selecting a spot or zone. Pet. 25, Prelim. Resp. 41 (citing Ex. 1027 (Allen), 47:1–28). cleaning apparatus,” because such an interpretation is consistent with the Specification.” slip op. at 18

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)EnabledNot shown unpatentable

    “With specific regard to enablement, the Petitioner argues: The ’517 patent does not enable one skilled in the art to practice the inventions of claims 1, 4, and 15 because it does not provide any working example or guidance for performing the “autonomously identify” limitations—the very limitations that were allegedly novel over the prior art, resulting in the grant of the ’517 patent. Cowan [Ex. 1003], ¶¶ 90-91. Here, the ’517 patent’s complete lack of direction to the skilled artisan for the allegedly novel feature renders the claims invalid for lack of enablement. Pet. 51. Petitioner also argues that “the ’517 patent provides no working examples or guidance teaching one skilled in the art how to” “autonomously identify a hot spot or predefined zone in a map prior to initiation of a cleaning mission” and that “the ’517 patent does not even provide a ‘conceptual’ figure or description of how a receiving system performs the ‘autonomously identify’ limitation.” Id. at 53, 55. And still further, Petitioner argues that “[t]he ’517 patent’s complete failure to provide any example, direction, or guidance to the skilled artisan is dispositive and renders the claims invalid for lack of enablement.” Id. at 55. For factual support of its enablement argument, Petitioner refers back to its explanation as to how the ’517 patent fails to meet the written description requirement. Id. at 53. We reject Petitioner’s enablement ground for the same reasons we reject its written description ground. Based on the showing in the Petition, we are not persuaded that the Specification of the ’517 patent “does not provide any working example or guidance for performing the ‘autonomously identify’ limitation” or that there is no disclosure adequate to “teach[ ] one skilled in the art how to” “autonomously identify a hot spot or predefined zone in a map prior to initiation of a cleaning mission.” To the contrary, for the reasons detailed above, we determine that the “autonomously identify” limitations are adequately supported by the Specification of the ’517 patent and that the Specification of the ’517 patent would enable a skilled artisan to make and use the invention.” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A skilled artisan would have had at least a four-year degree in mechanical engineering or electrical engineering or a closely related field and at least one year of experience in the design and implementation of robotics and embedded systems. Cowan [Ex. 1003], ¶¶ 17-19. Additional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,813,517
• Unified Patents Inc. v. KCG Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2021 · IPR2019-01536 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious; the revised motion to amend is denied because proposed substitute claims 14–26 are unpatentable as obvious or indefinite.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Petitioner. Proposed substitute claim 24 recites “the handheld device” without antecedent basis. This lack of antecedent basis renders proposed substitute claim 24 indefinite, as we noted in our Preliminary Guidance. Pet. Opp. to RMTA 25; Prelim. Guidance 8 (“Proposed substitute claim 24 also recites ‘the handheld device’ and also suffers from the lack of antecedent basis). Despite having the opportunity to correct its error and amend proposed substitute dependent claim 24 when independent claim 14 was amended to remove the recitation of “a handheld device,” Patent Owner did not do so in its Contingent Revised Motion to Amend. RMTA 31. Proposed substitute claim 24 is indefinite because the claim “fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); see USPTO Memorandum on the Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021)13; see MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020). This is because “the handheld device” is only recited in proposed substitute claim 24, and the proposed substitute claim fails to inform one skilled in the art the scope of invention related to synchronizing “data on the handheld device” “in the virtual smart phone.” Because proposed substitute claims 25 and 26 depend from proposed substitute claim 24, we similarly agree with Petitioner that claims 25 and 26 also are indefinite for lacking an antecedent basis for the term “handheld device.” Pet. Opp. to RMTA 25. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 24–26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite.” slip op. at 40

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “Whether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Absent clear reliance on the preamble in the prosecution history, or in situations where it is necessary to provide antecedent basis for the body of the claim, the preamble generally is not limiting.” Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assoc. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). When the limitations in the body of the claim rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble, then the preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention and is limiting. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A claim preamble also is limiting if the preamble is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 182 F.3d at 1305. We disagree with Patent Owner. Specifically, we do not agree that limitations in the body of the claims require the preamble to serve as an antecedent basis nor do they derive essential structure from the preamble. Rather, all of the elements recited in the body of claim 1 comprise a “virtual smart phone.” That is, we do not discern, and Patent Owner fails to persuasively point us to, any structure imparted by the preamble’s recitation of a “virtual smart phone.” See Pet. Reply 1–2. We similarly do not agree that the without the term “virtual smart phone” there would be no understanding of the “emulating” or “handheld device” limitations. Rather, the recited “software application executing on the processor” limitation provides the structure and meaning for the “emulating” of the “handheld device” features. Furthermore, we agree with the Petitioner that there is no evidence in the record that the prosecution history requires that the preamble is limiting, and the claims were distinguished during prosecution based on the recitation of a “virtual” smart phone. Id. at 2–3. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting. slip op. at 7

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

    “on the process to . . . emulate features of a handheld device.” Ex. 1001, 12:58–60 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the term “‘emulate’ has a meaning in the art that is common and understood to mean ‘to imitate.’” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner provides a dictionary definition to support its contention. Ex. 2004 (defining “emulate” as “to imitate in an effort to equal or surpass”). Patent Owner contends the use of “emulate” in claim 1 comports with its commonly understood meaning as “to imitate,” as does the use of the term “emulate” in the written description. Pet. 18–20 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:3, 2:6–3:5, 12:54–13:2 (claim 1)). Petitioner argues that the term “emulate” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and does not contest Patent Owner’s construction of the term “emulate” as “to imitate.” Pet. 6–7; Pet. Reply 7. Petitioner, however, contests Patent Owner’s application of that construction to the asserted prior art. Pet. Reply 4–7 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 24–26). Petitioner specifically argues that Patent Owner implies that “(1) the imitation must be an exact duplicate in display and manner of input . . . or (2) the imitation relates only to the display and touch screen aspects.” Pet. Reply 4–5. In support of its position that Patent Owner’s interpretation of “to imitate” improperly narrows the meaning of “emulate,” Petitioner contends the written description discloses “less than full replication as emulation” and “controlling the handheld device th[r]ough control of a projected image using a variety of control input mechanisms provides emulation.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:2–5, 3:57–61, 4:63–66, 6:24–42). Petitioner also notes that the dictionary definition Patent Owner proffered indicates that an exact duplication is not required. Pet. Reply 7 (“The complete definition of emulate [as] ‘to imitate in an effort to equal or surpass.’ Ex. 1004, 3”). We conclude that a preponderance of evidence supports the construction of the term “emulate” to mean “to imitate,” without any further restriction such as exact duplication or only display or touch screen aspects. Accordingly, we construe the term “emulate” as “to imitate.”” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at or before the priority date of the ’955 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in the field of automotive information systems.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–39); Ex. 1034 ¶ 14 (Petitioner’s expert reiterating the same level of ordinary skill in the art). Patent Owner does not propose an ordinary level of skill in the art. We agree with and adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art as articulated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 9,671,955 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,671,955
• Captioncall, L.L.C. / Sorenson Communications, Inc. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00637 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious; Patent Owner’s contingent motion to amend is denied for lack of written-description support and indefiniteness.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “admitted that the patented features of voice and revoiced text are responsible for ‘giv[ing] the phone back to folks with hearing loss.’” PO Resp. 48 (emphasis added). Thus, Patent Owner is offering the statement for the truth that voice and re-voiced text gives the phone back to folks with hearing loss. Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Puzey was discussing the existence of features in his company’s product rather than features in Patent Owner’s product does not change that his statement is offered as proof regarding an alleged long-felt need for the features. Accordingly, his testimony is hearsay. slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “art is telecommunication systems. Thus, a [POSA] is a person familiar with at least that technology by way of background and/or experience.” CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00549, Paper 71, 13 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015); see also CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00780, Paper 35, 9 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015) (reaffirming our finding in IPR2013- 00549). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree” with that definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and that, “without waiving the foregoing objection and reserving all rights,” states that it will “appl[y]” our prior definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art “for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 3. By not setting forth arguments advocating a particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and by applying our prior definition, Patent Owner has waived arguments for any other definition. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as expressed by its declarant, Mr. Occhiogrosso. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 26–27. This person typically has “a bachelor’s degree” slip op. at 35

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

    “understand a “communication link,” as claimed, to refer to the “communication line” described in the specification. In particular, the link is “intended not only to apply to a traditional land-line . . . but also to all equivalents that offer similar functionality.” Id. at 8:60–63. A link could be “a portion of the bandwidth” of a particular connection, such that a single mode of connection (e.g., IP) could carry out two types of communication (voice and text), with each type corresponding to a different “communication link.” See id. at 8:44–47, 8:63–65. For example, as explained in the ’838 patent, “[e]ach of the telephone lines could be . . . a portion of the bandwidth of an ISDN or DSL service.” Id. at 8:53–65. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s construction of “communication link” as “any communication session, protocol, link, connection, or path distinguishable from [another] communication link[].”” slip op. at 22

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

    “3. Combination of References As we discussed above, Petitioner’s combination takes the two-line” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 8,908,838 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,908,838
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00825 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; the petition did not prove claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14–18 unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Applying these principles to the instant case, in an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on Petitioner to prove “unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. (explaining petitioner “had the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and this burden never shifted”). Petitioner also has the initial burden of production. Id. Petitioner satisfied its burden of production by arguing in its Petition that Spadaro was prior art under § 102(e) and, in combination with one or more other prior art references, would have rendered claims 1–20 obvious at the time the invention was made under § 103(a). Pet. 4–5, 13–36.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Even if we were to find that Petitioner’s citation to two pages of its declarant’s testimony, without explanation, does not amount to improper incorporation by reference, the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Leonard J. Forys, Ph.D., is insufficient to show one of ordinary skill in the art was in possession of the subject matter of the claims at issue. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). First, the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Forys, is conclusory, merely quoting some portions of the ’357 patent without adequately explaining how the quoted portions relate to the subject matter recited by the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Moreover, during cross-examination Dr. Forys explained his analysis, “I just went through the ’167 patent and just picked a few things out that seem to indicate that they are already there. . . . So it was illustrative. It’s not a detailed analysis. It is just suggestive.” Ex. 2006, 48:1–7.” slip op. at 20

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

    “The ’357 patent does not set forth a special definition for “call application management system.” As confirmed by Dr. Forys (id.), the plain language of the claim specifies the function required to be performed by the call application management system—connecting calls responsive to receiving a request to connect the call. Although Dr. Forys found Patent Owner’s proposed construction to be “reasonable,” Patent Owner’s proposed construction unnecessarily introduces the term “call processing,” which is not recited by the claim itself and on its face seems broader than the recited function of a call application management system—to connect a call. We do not agree with Patent Owner that a call application management system must perform examples of call processing described by the Specification, but not recited in the claim. Limitations from embodiments are not to be imported into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Furthermore, we find that Patent Owner’s contention— the name “the call application management system of Claim 1 would be understood [by one of ordinary skill in the art] to manage, from start to finish, each call placed or received at the plurality of prisons” (PO Resp. 6)—places too much weight on the term “management” without sufficiently addressing the term “application.” We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, who disagrees that call application management system is 25 required to manage “all call processing, ‘from start to finish.’” Ex. 1020 ¶ 8 (emphasis omitted). Therefore, in light of the plain language of the claim, the Specification of the ’357 patent, and according the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant and Petitioner’s declarant appropriate weight, we construe “call application management system” to mean a system that performs the enumerated function—“connecting a call to or from the telephone terminals over a telephone carrier network responsive to receiving a request for connecting the call.”” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In general, we adopt the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. Patent Owner’s proposed academic or industry experience of telephony14 systems comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record, which relate to telephone communication systems. Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why the broader field of communications systems is a more appropriate area of academic or industry experience than telephony systems. Thus, we generally adopt Patent Owner’s proposed academic or industry experience in telephony systems. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or an equivalent field, as well as at least three years of academic or industry experience in telephony systems.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,529,357 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,529,357
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2015 · IPR2014-00824 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 19, and 20 are unpatentable over Spadaro and Hodge; claim 13 is unpatentable over Spadaro, Hodge, and Cree. Claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14–18 were …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “the burden of persuasion is on Petitioner to prove “unpatentability by a preponderance of evidence,” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the Patent Owner. See id. (explaining petitioner “had the burden of 11 Dynamic Drinkware issued after the time of the trial hearing and post-hearing briefing. 11 persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence, and this burden never shifted”). Petitioner also has the initial burden of production. Id. Petitioner satisfied its burden of production by arguing in its Petition that Spadaro was prior art under § 102(e) and, in combination with one or more other prior art references, would have rendered claims 1–20 obvious at the time the invention was made under § 103(a). Pet. 4–5, 19–35.” slip op. at 11

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

    “production under § 103(c)(1), Petitioner contends it carried its burden of production to show that the ’167 patent (grandparent) sufficiently would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Patent Owner had possession of the claimed subject matter and, therefore, the ’260 patent is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the ’167 patent. Reply 7. As Petitioner recognizes (Reply 6), a claim in an application is entitled, under 35 U.S.C. § 120, to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims in the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. 35 U.S.C. § 120; In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Petitioner’s argument consists of a single paragraph identifying claim numbers and locations where the ’167 patent purportedly describes the subject matter of most, but not all, of the claims at issue and a citation to a single paragraph in its declarant’s supplemental declaration supporting Petitioner’s Reply. Reply 7 (listing claims 2, 8, 9, 11, and 14–18, but not listing claims 5 and 12; citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 16).” slip op. at 21

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

    “The ’260 patent does not set forth a special definition for “call application management system.” As confirmed by Dr. Forys (id.), the plain language of the claim specifies the function required to be performed by the call application management system—connecting calls responsive to 26 receiving a request to connect the call. Although Dr. Forys found Patent Owner’s proposed construction to be “reasonable,” Patent Owner’s proposed construction unnecessarily introduces the term “call processing,” which is not recited by the claim itself and on its face seems broader than the recited function of a call application management system—to connect a call. We do not agree with Patent Owner that a call application management system must perform examples of call processing described by the Specification, but not recited in the claim. Limitations from embodiments are not to be imported into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Furthermore, we find that Patent Owner’s contention— the name “the call application management system would be understood [by one of ordinary skill in the art] to manage, from start to finish, each call placed or received at the plurality of prisons” (PO Resp. 6)—places too much weight on the term “management” without sufficiently addressing the term “application.” We credit the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, who disagrees that call application management system is required to manage “all call processing, ‘from start to finish.’” Ex. 1020 ¶ 8. Therefore, in light of the plain language of the claim, the Specification of the ’260 patent, and according the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant and Petitioner’s declarant appropriate weight, we construe “call application management system” to mean a system that performs the enumerated function—“connecting a call to or from the telephone terminals over a telephone carrier network responsive to receiving a request for connecting the call.”” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties propose similar levels of ordinary skill in the art and do not directly challenge the other’s proposal. We consider the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). The prior art references, like the ’260 patent, relate to telephone communication systems. See Ex. 1001, 1:60–62 (indicating the technical field relates to inmate management and call processing); Ex. 1004, 1:7–9 (indicating the field of the invention relates to the processing of voice telephone calls); Ex. 1005, 1:7–9 (indicating the field of the invention relates to telephone communication systems). In general, we adopt the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. Patent Owner’s proposed academic or industry experience of telephony15 systems comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record, which relate to telephone communication systems. Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why the broader field of communications systems is a more appropriate area of academic or industry 15 MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS 2112 (6th ed. 2003) (defining telephony as “[t]he transmission of speech to a distant point by means of electric signals”) (Ex. 3001). 30 experience than telephony systems. Thus, we generally adopt Patent Owner’s proposed academic or industry experience in telephony systems. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,340,260 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,340,260

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.