• Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00557 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 10–12, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 6, and 8 were not shown unpatentable; the contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would be a person with a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent training or job experience, with two years of experience in computer networking technology, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or other equivalent degree.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47). Patent Owner indicates that it does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art 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 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “associated sessions” With respect to the limitation “associated sessions,” Patent Owner asserted that the ’669 Patent defines those sessions as those that “should not be managed independent from each another,” and continues to assert the same in its Response. PO Resp. 14–15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:37–38). Based on the recitations of the Specification, we construe “associated sessions” as “sessions that should not be managed independent from each other,” as proffered by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 7:37–38. slip op. at 8

  • Prior constructionTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas rejected Petitioner’s proposed construction in the District Court Case, and following briefing and oral argument in that proceeding, the District Court concluded that “composition session” means “a signaling session that is separate from the associated sessions and that is for facilitating management of the associated sessions.” PO Resp. 16. Having reviewed the District Court’s determination, we do not discern a significant difference in scope between it and Petitioner’s formulation, and we, thus, adopt its construction of “composition session” in the analysis below.” slip op. at 9

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

    “As such, we continue to determine that Petitioner has sufficiently established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a rationale to combine the teachings of Foti with RFC 3261, RFC 4566, RFC 2326, Wright, and Lloyd, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving that combination, as we determined in the Institution Decision. See Inst. Dec. 17–18. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have consulted and utilized disclosures in the RFC references to understand and implement the protocols disclosed by Foti. We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that such skilled artisans would have had a rationale to combine the teachings of Wright and Lloyd with those of Foti for the reasons provided. Petitioner has asserted that each of the supporting references would have been used by persons of ordinary skill in the art to modify or enhance the system described in Foti for the benefits described for the proposed changes. Absent reasons the references should not be combined, we determine that the motivation proffered by the Petition is sufficient to support the combination, under the preponderance of the evidence standard.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,667,669 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,667,669
• Walmart Inc. / Current Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Power Concepts, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2023 · IPR2022-00569 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable; the contingent motion to amend proposing claims 15–28 and the motion to exclude are denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “of the claimed “light emitting diode.” Looking at the intrinsic evidence, neither the claim nor the specification defines the light emitting diode as including an integrated lens. With respect to Dr. Bretschneider’s analysis of Dowling’s lens described in paragraph 24, we disagree with Dr. Bretschneider’s conclusion that Dowling’s lens does not teach a lens as claimed. Ex. 2076 ¶ 431 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 24).” slip op. at 31

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “electriciaan” and not a “licensed electrician.” Opp. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002, 25 ¶¶ 6–7, 32 ¶¶ 46, 48). Instead, Petitioner argues that “the disclosure lacks the term ‘licensed electrician,’ lacks a definition of ‘licensed electrician,’ and lacks an explanation of what type of electrical connection would be allowed without the assistance of a licensed electrician.” Id.; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 76–79) (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, Petitioner argues that the original application does not support proposed substitute claims 23 and 28. See id. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. The ’295 and ’447 applications describe a “skilled” electrician, not a “licensed” electrician. Patent Owner does not show that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret these to be equivalent. Accordingly, we find that proposed substitute claims 23 and 28 adds new matter. Proposed substitute claim 24 depends from claim 23 and thus includes the same new matter.” slip op. at 63

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

    “electrician. See id. (citing Ex. 1002, 25 ¶¶ 6–7). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Ducharme, attests that a “licensed electrician is an individual who has obtained a license from a regulatory authority such as a state or local government.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 85. The licensing standards set forth “differ depending upon a given industry” and “change over time.” Id. Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that “one skilled in the art is left to speculate as to what type of electrical wirings require a licensed electrician and which do not — there is no reasonable certainty of the scope of the claimed invention, as the standard requires.” Opp. 5–6 (citing Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014)). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that proposed substitute claims 23 and 28 are indefinite. Specifically, we agree that there is no reasonable certainty as to the definition of a licensed electrician, nor how to adapt wiring for series connection without the required assistance of a licensed electrician. Accordingly, we find that proposed substitute claims 23 and 28 are indefinite. Proposed substitute claim 24 depends from claim 23 and thus includes the same indefinite limitation.” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 10,429,041 unpatentable
  § 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,429,041
• 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
• Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2021 · IPR2019-01350 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3 and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Shellhammer; claim 8 was not reached on the merits.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteDecided for patent owner

    “Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp., 948 F.3d 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (footnote omitted). This is such a situation. We cannot reach a decision on the merits with respect to whether Petitioner has established the unpatentability of claim 8 under any ground of unpatentability asserted by Petitioner, i.e., (1) obvious over Sherman and Trompower, (2) obvious over Shellhammer and Trompower, and (3) obvious over Shellhammer and Panasik.” slip op. at 77

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

    “challenged claims indeed do satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119 with respect to the foreign application the priority of which it claims.5 Cf. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379– 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Dynamic Drinkware stated that because the USPTO does not examine priority claims unless necessary, the Board has no basis to presume that a patent is necessarily entitled to the filing date of its provisional application. Id. at 1380. Under the reasoning of Dynamic Drinkware, the same would be true for a foreign application the priority of which has been claimed. Patent Owner has made no substantive showing in this proceeding of actual entitlement to the filing date of the German Application, by satisfaction of all pertinent requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119. Accordingly, the effective filing date of the ’676 patent is August 8, 2001, not the earlier filing date of German Application No. 100 39 532.5.” slip op. at 13

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

    “supported by the underlying disclosure of Sherman. Dr. Roy in paragraph 175 of his Declaration (Ex. 1003) cites to column 4, lines 1–8, of Sherman, which states: “The CFP occurs with a regular period, and all 802.11 terminals set their NAV’s during the CFP. To realize such a super frame the following sequence of frames/phases can be used as shown in the graph of FIG. 5.” Ex. 1004, 4:1–5. This disclosure does not indicate, as Dr. Roy concludes, that the control station “relinquish[es]” time to 802.11 CP access if no HIPERLAN/2 transmission requests are pending. Ex. 1003 ¶ 175. We also find unpersuasive Dr. Roy’s testimony that if there is sufficient HIPERLAN/2 traffic, Sherman teaches that the HIPERLAN/2 phase may be extended to very close to the entire superframe. Id. As discussed above, in Sherman, the CFP already is preset, without regard to whether or how many HIPERLAN/2 requests are pending. Ex. 1004, 6:5–6. Dr. Roy’s conclusion is not supported by the disclosure of Sherman and also is not adequately explained.” slip op. at 34

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner

    “III. CONSTITUTIONAL APPOINTMENT Patent Owner argues that Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) “are principal officers under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution” “but undisputably are not appointed through the constitutionally-mandated mechanism of appointment for principal officers.” PO Resp. 60. The Federal Circuit, however, addressed this issue and devised a remedy in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2019) cert. granted sub nom. United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 2020 WL 6037206 (Oct. 13, 2020). Patent Owner argues that the remedy devised by the Federal Circuit “impermissibly rewrites the statutes governing APJs.” Id. at 61. We decline to consider the argument because the Arthrex decision states otherwise. See Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1337 (“This as-applied severance . . . cures the constitutional violation.”).” slip op. at 77

  Patent outcomesUS 7,016,676 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,016,676
• Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2021 · IPR2019-01349 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Shellhammer; claim 5’s patentability could not be reached because its scope is ambiguous.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Further, even assuming that the Patent Owner successfully shows that the Examiner erred in not accepting the applicant’s foreign priority claim, that does not mean Patent Owner, in this proceeding, is automatically entitled to the filing date of the foreign application. If Patent Owner wished to challenge the prior art status of a reference, after Petitioner satisfied its initial burden of production by arguing the reference is prior art, Patent Owner would then have to demonstrate, in this proceeding, that the challenged claims indeed do satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119 with respect to the foreign application the priority of which it claims.5 Cf. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379– 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Dynamic Drinkware states that because the USPTO does not examine priority claims unless necessary, the Board has no basis to presume that a patent is necessarily entitled to the filing date of its provisional application. Id. at 1380. Under the reasoning of Dynamic Drinkware, the same would be true for a foreign application, the priority of which has been claimed. Patent Owner has made no substantive showing in this proceeding of actual entitlement to the filing date of the German Application, by satisfaction of all pertinent requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119. 5 “[I]f the effective filing date of what is claimed in a United States application is at issue, to preserve symmetry of treatment between sections 120 and 119, the foreign priority application must be examined to ascertain if it supports, within the meaning of section 112, ¶ 1, what is claimed in the United States application.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the effective filing date of the ’676 patent is August 8, 2001, not the earlier filing date of German Application No. 100 39 532.5.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we have no reason to disagree with Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill, which is supported by the testimony of Dr. Roy (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–63), except to note that the open-ended qualifier “or more” as applied to years of experience expands the level to encompass that of an expert, which is inappropriate for the level of 7 Patent Owner has not presented any objective evidence of nonobviousness or any argument in that regard. “ordinary skill.” Petitioner’s articulation without the expansive qualifier appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Therefore, we adopt the Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill, but without the expansive qualifier “or more” as applied to the amount of experience. C.” slip op. at 13

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

    “stations which operate in accordance with a first radio interface standard and/or a second radio interface standard” Claim 1 recites: “stations which operate in accordance with a first radio interface standard and/or a second radio interface standard.” Ex. 1001, 6:24–26. Although Petitioner asserts that no construction is necessary for this phrase and that the plain and ordinary meaning applies, Petitioner nonetheless proposes that the phrase, according to its plain and ordinary meaning, means “stations, each of which operates in accordance with a first radio interface standard, a second radio interface standard, or both.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner asserts that no construction is necessary. PO Resp. 14. Regarding Petitioner’s articulation of the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase, Patent Owner has not refuted it in any way, and it appears consistent with what the phrase ostensibly indicates. Thus, on the record before us, we accept and adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the plain and ordinary meaning for this phrase. slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “renders the frequency band available for access by the stations working in accordance with the second radio interface standard if stations working in accordance with the first radio interface standard do not request access to the frequency band” Claim 1 recites: “renders the frequency band available for access by the stations working in accordance with the second radio interface standard if stations working in accordance with the first radio interface standard do not request access to the frequency band.” Ex. 1001, 6:32–36. For this phrase, Petitioner asserts that “claim construction is not necessary.”8 Pet. 15. Patent Owner, likewise, “submits that the Board need not construe this claim term.” PO Resp. 14. We agree with the parties that express claim construction of this claim term or phrase is not necessary. Although no additional discussion is necessary, we point out certain inaccuracies in the Patent Owner Response, to avoid potential confusion. slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,016,676 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,016,676
• U.D. Electronic Corp. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 22, 2020 · IPR2019-00511 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–16 are unpatentable; the motion to amend is denied for substitute claims 17, 20, and 21 as indefinite and granted for claims 18, 19, 22, and 23.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art in of the ’302 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or mechanical engineering, with two or more years of experience designing connectors with EMI shielding. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 55–58). Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art is largely the same, urging a similar amount of education and experience, detailing “at least one year of experience with electrical connectors having internal electronic components, or at least two years’ experience with designing electrical connectors having internal electronic components.” Prelim. Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 27). We determined previously that the proffered definitions were largely the same and we determined them to be appropriate for the technology addressed by this proceeding. Inst. Dec. 7. Patent Owner subsequently agreed that “there are not meaningful differences between the parties’ definitions of a POSITA for purposes of this proceeding.” PO Resp. 9–10. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “After review of the proffered arguments, we remain persuaded that Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning in the context of the ’302 Patent. Patent Owner cites to multiple cases regarding the use of embodiments of the invention set forth in the specification to interpret limitations, despite claim language that could be interpreted more broadly. PO Resp. 16–18; PO Sur-reply 8–10 (citing Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301–02 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Cryo–Trans, Inc., 93 F.3d 766, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1550–51 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). We determine that the portions of the specification cited by Patent Owner are not express or implied definitions of the term “effectively curved portion.” See Phillips at 1321 (the specification “acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication”). Patent Owner continues that “the only embodiments disclosed in the ’302 Patent have the substrates positioned substantially orthogonal and substantially vertical to the face of the housing,” and “the run of the conductors must make an approximately 90° change in direction to provide an electrical interconnection.” Id. at 18. Such arguments and case law would be pertinent if we interpreted claim 1, for example, as requiring substrates to not be orthogonal or if we required the “effectively curved portion” to not result in a 90° change in direction. We do not interpret claim 1 that way, so Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive. disclosure into a claim that does not recite such requirements. It is improper to add a limitation appearing in the specification and the drawings, but not appearing in the unambiguous language of a claim. See Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This is particularly true where the specification does not define the term at issue to include that additional limitation or otherwise include language requiring it. Claims 1–3, 7, 9, and 13–16 recite, in part, that the first conductors include an “effectively curved portion,” and each claim recites that limitation unambiguously. Although we acknowledge the varying embodiments disclosed in the ’302 Patent, we are persuaded that confining the “effectively curved portion” to be “approximately 90º” is overly narrow. We continue to determine that adopting Patent Owner’s construction would unduly limit the cited claims, i.e., claims 1–3, 7, 9, and 13–16, by importing limitations that are not part of the claims. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, we continue to determine that “effectively curved portion” should be construed as any form of bend of the first conductors.” slip op. at 15

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

    “unpersuasive because the unfiltered connector of Hughes does not disclose an internal board, and that any combination of Kan with Hughes would result, at most, in the “second conductors,” but not the “first conductors,” being bent so that the internal conductors mate with the internal substrate. PO Resp. 43 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 124, 128). Patent Owner additionally asserts that the reorientation envisioned by the combination would add to material costs, reduce performance due to longer conductor runs, necessitate additional alterations, and provide no space savings or advantage. Id. at 43– 44 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 122, 129). Petitioner responds that the rationale for combining Kan and Hughes merely involves a design choice, and would apply a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results in an improved system. Pet. Reply 19–20 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–421). We agree with Petitioner. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Any modification of a prior art device will result in changes thereto, as a matter of course; the question, rather, is whether there existed sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skill to make the proposed modifications in light of the evidence of record. We find that Petitioner’s evidence of the benefits resulting from the combination, i.e., saving space for the connector assembly and reorienting the plug-receiving opening for insertion of a connector plug in accordance with the desired implementation based on where the housing is mounted, provide sufficient motivation to make these changes, and that Patent Owner’s arguments about the materials costs and possible reduced performance are insufficient to defeat the evidence of motivation to combine.” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Kan is the product of impermissible hindsight, and the combination would change the basic principles of operation of the connectors for which they were designed. PO Resp. 45–47. Patent Owner argues that “Hughes was designed to operate by mounting to an external circuit board, and Kan was designed to operate by engaging a circuit board inside of the housing,” and their combination would render Kan unfit for its intended purpose of supporting a compact size. Id. at 46–47. We do not agree. Mr. Baxter has acknowledged that Hughes and Kan are analogous technologies directed to the common problem in the art of incorporating a circuit board with a connector so that it may offer additional functions. See Ex. 2006, ¶¶ 145– 148. We disagree that the combination of Kan and Hughes would change combination of Kan and Hughes would not be the same as the individual connectors, and we are not persuaded that the size of Kan would need to be increased such that it would be unfit for its intended purposes. As such, we do not determine Patent Owner’s argument to be persuasive.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 6,773,302 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 6,773,302
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2018 · CBM2016-00095 · APJ Joni Y Chang · CBM · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,908,842 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,908,842
• 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
• Square, Inc. v. Protegrity CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 2, 2016 · CBM2014-00182 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 33–60 are unpatentable under § 101; the motion to add substitute claims 61–68 is denied because it broadens claims and lacks written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “claim, and “it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The written description of the ’281 patent does not contain a definition of “database.” The claimed database for storing a plurality of data portions corresponds to the O-DB database disclosed in the ’281 patent. The O-DB database is part of a larger “database management system” that includes multiple databases. Id. at 5:53–6:22; Fig. 3. Similar to the other databases, the O-DB database is described as containing data and, in particular, data to be protected. Id. at 6:62–67. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument (PO Resp. 17–18), the ’281 patent does not describe the O-DB database, or any other database, as performing any other data processing or managing functions. In particular, the ’281 patent does not describe that the O-DB database produces the compelling calling to the data protection catalogue. See Ex. 1001, 10:48–60 (“is first collected by the system”); see id. at Abstract, 2:65–3:5, 3:59–4:2, 4:26–31, 7:63–67, 8:53–61 (describing a compelling calling to a data protection catalogue, but failing to describe the compelling calling being produced by the O-DB database).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner that the broadest reasonable construction, in light of the specification of the ’281 patent, of “data portion” is “a part or share of the database.” The ’281 patent contains no lexicographic definition of “data portion” and, therefore, “data portion” is given its plain and ordinary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of “portion,” which is an individual’s part or share of something. See Ex. 3001 (MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 908 (10TH ED. 1998)). Petitioner’s proposed construction is also consistent with the words of independent claims 33 and 47, which require that the data portions are part of a database. E.g., see Ex. 1001, 11:18–19 (claim 1 recites “maintaining a database comprising a plurality of data portions”). Petitioner’s proposed construction is further consistent with dependent claims 37, 38, 51, and 52, which further define the claimed data portions to be “a column of data in the database” or “a field of data in the database.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction is overly narrow and improperly attempts to import the limitations from the specification of the ’281 patent into the claim. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Although the ’281 patent describes the invention as working on the cell or data element level (see Ex. 1001, 3:52–59), we see nothing in the claims, themselves, that require the data portions to be data element values. Dependent claims 37 and 51 are inconsistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, because they define the data portion as a column of data, which is a larger portion of data than a data element value.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Mr. Mattsson’s and Dr. Direen’s testimony is unpersuasive because it is inconsistent with the ’281 patent. As discussed above, the ’281 patent describes the O-DB as one database in a larger database management system. Ex. 1001, 5:52–6:22. The ’281 patent describes the O-DB database as containing data and describes the modules of the larger database management system as performing data processing. Id. at 5:62–67, 6:23–56. The ’281 patent does not describe the O-DB database as producing the compelling calling. See Ex. 1001, 10:48–60 (“is first collected by the system”); see id. at Abstract, 2:65–3:5, 3:59–4:2, 4:26–31; 7:63–67; 8:53–61 (disclosing a compelling calling to a data protection catalogue, but failing to describe the compelling calling being produced by the O-DB database). The assertion that the compelling calling is produced by the O-DB database is only found in Patent Owner’s arguments, Mr. Mattsson’s testimony, and Dr. Direen’s testimony, and not the ’281 patent. E.g., see Ex. 2045 ¶¶ 12–16, 22, 29; Ex. 2046 ¶ 19; Ex. 2078 ¶¶ 11–12; Ex. 2079 ¶¶ 7–8. Extraneous features should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In that regard, “extrinsic evidence may be used only to assist in the proper understanding of the disputed limitation; it may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the claim language from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or file history.” Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Commc'ns Grp., 262 F.3d 1258, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“expert testimony, which was inconsistent with the specification and file history, should have been accorded no weight”). Further, we give little weight to Mr. Mattsson’s testimony because Mr. Mattsson is not a disinterested witness. Mr. Mattsson is Patent Owner’s Chief Technology Officer and Co-founder (Ex. 2019, 2) and has an interest in the outcome of this proceeding. Contrary to Mr. Mattsson’s and Dr. Direen’s testimony, Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Shamos testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would know, based upon the ’281 patent, that the compelling calling is produced not by the O-DB, but by control module 20, Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 15–21. Dr. Shamos’ testimony is persuasive because it is consistent with the written description of the ’281 patent, discussed above. Patent Owner argues that we should give no weight to Dr. Shamos’ testimony. PO Resp. 61–64. According to Patent Owner, Dr. Shamos is not a person of ordinary skill in the art because Dr. Shamos lacks knowledge and expertise in database administration and security. Id. at 63. Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive because Dr. Shamos is testifying as an expert whose knowledge and experience qualify him to opine on what a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the invention. See Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 1–2 (testimony concerning his knowledge of encryption and database technology); Ex. 1003 (Resume of Dr. Shamos). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that Dr. Shamos is not qualified to opine as to the knowledge of person of ordinary skill at the time of the filing. We, thus, are not persuaded by Patent Owner that we should give no weight to Dr. Shamos’ testimony.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Independent claim 33 recites a data processing method that grants access to a requested data portion if the rules associated with a data category that is associated with the requested data portion is satisfied. Ex. 1001, 13:38–54. Claim 33 requires a database that comprises the data portions and requires a separate data protection table comprising data processing rules that must be satisfied before the data portion can be accessed. Id. The data processing rules are associated with the data category. Id. Independent claim 47 recites a corresponding computer system. Id. at 14:47–63. Independent claims 33 and 47, thus, recite a method or system that grants access to a requested data portion if the rules associated with a data category that is associated with the requested data portion are satisfied. Ex. 1001, 13:38–54. Given the above, we are persuaded by Petitioner that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining whether access to data should be granted based on whether one or more rules are satisfied. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, because Patent Owner’s argument is based upon elements not required by the claims. See PO Resp. 21–28, 35–38. Given our construction of “data portion” and “database” in section II (A) above, the claims do not require protection on the data element level based on rules stored in a separate database, where the first database calls out to the second database. Patent Owner’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,402,281 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo
  Patents in suitUS 8,402,281
• Apple Inc. v. Tracbeam, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 12, 2016 · IPR2015-01700 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Apple had not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, 7, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27–29, 32, 33, 35–39, and 42 were obvious over PCT ’307 …

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “LLC, filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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).” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “1. Whether the ’153 Patent is Entitled to the Filing Date of the ’367 Application Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are not entitled to priority because “they lack written description support.” Pet. 33. In particular, Petitioner contends that PCT ’892, published as PCT ’307, “does not contain any disclosure whatsoever of a GPS handset.” Id. at 36. Patent Owner points out correctly that the challenged claims do not recite expressly “GPS handset.” Prelim. Resp. 8. However, even assuming that the claims encompass a GPS handset, we are not persuaded, based on the arguments and evidence presented, that PCT ’307 fails to disclose a GPS handset. Petitioner asserts that the parent application to which the priority claim is made was published as PCT ’307 (Ex. 1003). Pet. 2–3. PCT ’307 provides more than 200 pages of textual description and more than 50 pages of drawings. See, generally, Ex. 1003. We note that PCT ’307 includes a similar definition section to that in the ’153 Patent Specification. Id. at 11. 3 We also note that PCT ’307 provides a non-exclusive list of wireless technologies that the mobile stations may use to communicate with any of “infrastructure base stations 122,” “mobile base stations(s) 148,” and “LBS [location base stations] 152.” Id. at 26. Furthermore, as Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 13–14), PCT ’307 discloses that the “mobile location unit” in a mobile base station may be similar to that in a mobile unit “For example . . . the electronics of the 3 Citations are to the page numbers of the PCT ‘307, not to the page numbering provided in the footer. mobile location unit may be little more than an onboard MS 140.” Ex. 1003, 102. This is consistent with the definitions section, which indicates that the term “mobile station” (“MS”) is synonymous with “location unit.” Id. at 11(explaining in definition 3.2 that “in some contexts herein instead or in addition to MS, the following terms are also used . . . ‘location unit’ (LU). In general these terms may be considered synonymous.”). PCT ’307 further discloses that a GPS receiver may be incorporated into that “mobile location unit”—which may be “little more than an onboard MS 140.” Id. (“In an enhanced version of the mobile location unit, a GPS receiver may also be incorporated so that the location of the mobile location unit may be determined.”). Therefore, in light of these disclosures and the arguments before us, we determine that even if the claims require a GPS handset as Petitioner asserts, the evidence considered in its entirety supports the conclusion that the inventor had possession of the invention as of the PCT ’892 filing date.” slip op. at 6

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

    “we are not persuaded, based on the arguments and evidence presented, that PCT ’307 fails to disclose a GPS handset. Petitioner asserts that the parent application to which the priority claim is made was published as PCT ’307 (Ex. 1003). Pet. 2–3. PCT ’307 provides more than 200 pages of textual description and more than 50 pages of drawings. See, generally, Ex. 1003. We note that PCT ’307 includes a similar definition section to that in the ’153 Patent Specification. Id. at 11. 3 We also note that PCT ’307 provides a non-exclusive list of wireless technologies that the mobile stations may use to communicate with any of “infrastructure base stations 122,” “mobile base stations(s) 148,” and “LBS [location base stations] 152.” Id. at 26. Furthermore, as Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 13–14), PCT ’307 discloses that the “mobile location unit” in a mobile base station may be similar to that in a mobile unit “For example . . . the electronics of the 3 Citations are to the page numbers of the PCT ‘307, not to the page numbering provided in the footer. mobile location unit may be little more than an onboard MS 140.” Ex. 1003, 102. This is consistent with the definitions section, which indicates that the term “mobile station” (“MS”) is synonymous with “location unit.” Id. at 11(explaining in definition 3.2 that “in some contexts herein instead or in addition to MS, the following terms are also used . . . ‘location unit’ (LU). In general these terms may be considered synonymous.”). PCT ’307 further discloses that a GPS receiver may be incorporated into that “mobile location unit”—which may be “little more than an onboard MS 140.” Id. (“In an enhanced version of the mobile location unit, a GPS receiver may also be incorporated so that the location of the mobile location unit may be determined.”). Therefore, in light of these disclosures and the arguments before us, we determine that even if the claims require a GPS handset as Petitioner asserts, the evidence considered in its entirety supports the conclusion that the inventor had possession of the invention as of the PCT ’892 filing date.” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “GPS receiver in a mobile base station 152 [is] separate from the mobile station 140.” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 35–38). Mr. Judge testifies that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the disclosure of GPS in the ’892 application as applying to use of GPS only in base stations, not GPS in mobile stations or handsets.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 37. Mr. Judge acknowledges that PCT ’307 describes (1) “use of a GPS receiver in a mobile base station” and (2) use of “the included GPS” to determine “the mobile station’s location.” Id. ¶ 35. Mr. Judge, however, testifies “if the inventors had contemplated and were in possession of GPS in a mobile station or handset, one of skill in the art would have expected them to have similarly included such disclosure in the application as was included for GPS in the mobile base station.” Id. ¶ 37. We are not persuaded by Mr. Judge’s testimony, which is conclusory and does not disclose sufficiently the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). As a result, we give little weight to Mr. Judge’s testimony regarding, for example, the expectation of one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the disclosure of PCT ’307 considered in its entirety. As Patent Owner points out, Mr. Judge and the Petition also do not consider sufficiently the “definitions” section of PCT ’307, which we are persuaded is highly relevant to understanding what PCT ’307 discloses. Prelim. Resp. 15.” slip op. at 7

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,032,153

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.