- PTAB · Dec 6, 2023 · IPR2023-01019 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim, including over Lyren and Reif assuming Lyren is prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’179 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to all challenged claims and grounds asserted in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2022). Our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding are based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. This is not a final decision as to patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“The Director’s Memo provides that “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc.,[8] the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Director’s Memo 3. With our authorization, Petitioner has filed a stipulation which stipulates that 7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_ litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf. 8 Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential). If the PTAB institutes the pending IPR in IPR2023-01019 challenging the patentability of claims 1-20 of the ’179 patent, then [Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, and Twisted Pixel Games, LLC] will not pursue as to the challenged claims any ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR in the above-captioned district court litigation (No. 6:22-cv-00575-ADA). Prelim. Reply 1. Patent Owner concedes that Petitioner has filed a “Sotera-like stipulation” but argues that it is insufficient because it “leaves the door open to a duplication of efforts and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1 (citing Ex. 1141, 4 (“This stipulation is not intended . . . to limit Meta’s ability to assert . . . invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 not available in IPR and under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112[], regardless of whether IPRs are instituted.” (emphasis omitted))). Namely, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s stipulation carves out “the right to assert overlapping system art in the parallel district court proceeding,” such that institution here would not address the risk of “inconsistent outcomes between the PTAB and the district court.” Id. at 4. We disagree with Patent Owner, as Petitioner’s stipulation sufficiently” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that A POSA [person of ordinary skill in the art or “POSITA”] in the relevant timeframe (2015 to 2019) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science/engineering, music technology, or a related field, and at least two years of industry experience, or academic research experience, in virtual/augmented reality, audio engineering, or an equivalent. Additional education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–36). Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 4. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’179 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 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In inter partes review, we construe a claim using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil 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). The parties do not propose any claim constructions. See Pet. 6–7; Prelim. Resp. 4. We agree that no terms require construction at this stage. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,368,179 - Apple Inc. v. Memoryweb, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 7, 2023 · PGR2022-00006 · APJ Jason M Repko · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 17–44, and 49–59 are unpatentable over A3UM or for lack of written description; claims 13–16 and 45–48 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“2. Analysis A person is not entitled to a patent if their invention was “described in” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to Petitioner, A person of ordinary skill in the art in 2011 would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, and (2) at least applications such as photo management systems. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–46). In the Institution Decision, we applied Petitioner’s proposed definition. Inst. Dec. 12. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 7. We continue to find that the skill level identified by Petitioner (Pet. 12) is consistent with the record. Thus, we use the same definition here that we used in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“e. Conclusion Petitioner provides articulated reasoning, supported by rational” slip op. at 68
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“11. Written Description: Claims 6, 7, 38, and 39 Petitioner asserts that claims 6, 7, 38, and 39 are unpatentable as lacking adequate written-description support. Pet. 91–93. Claim 6 recites, in part, “The method of claim 4, wherein, in the people view, the first name is displayed adjacent to the first digital file associated with the first thumbnail image and the second name is displayed recites similar limitations. See id. at 38:47–50. Claim 7 depends from claim 6, and claim 39 depends from claim 38. Id. at 35:63–65 (claim 7), 38:51–53 (claim 39). Petitioner asserts that claims 6 and 38 require that the “people view” includes at least the following: (i) “a first thumbnail image associated with a first person,” (ii) “a first name associated with the first person,” (iii) “a second thumbnail image associated with a second person,” (iv) “a second name associated with the second person,” and (v) a “first digital file associated with the first person.” Pet. 91. Petitioner argues that the ’020 patent lacks written-description support for a people view with these features. Id. at 92 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 315). Under Petitioner’s interpretation, digital files are “plainly distinct”” slip op. at 96
Patent outcomesUS 11,017,020 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,017,020 - Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. U.S. Well Services, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 17, 2023 · IPR2021-01316 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable over the stated anticipation and obviousness grounds; the motion to amend is denied because substitute claims 18–34 are indefinite, and claims 18–26 also lack written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“We agree with Petitioner that, by their plain language, the claims recite a plurality of variable frequency drives, with each of the variable frequency drive connected to either the first motor or a second motor. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 16:1–4; see also Ex. 2015 ¶ 48 (Patent Owner’s declarant testifying that “the ‘724 [patent] claims indicate that the plurality of electric control VFDs need to be coupled to either the first motor or the second motors.”). Coli discloses such an arrangement. Coli discloses that, “[b]ecause [its] electric motors are controlled by variable frequency drives, absolute control of all equipment on location can be maintained from one central point.” Ex. 1004, 11:10–12 (emphasis added). Coli discloses that “[t]ypically, each fracturing module 20 will be associated with a drive housing for controlling electric motor 21 and pumps 22, as well as an electrical transformer and drive unit 50.” Id. at 7:45–50. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that “the drive unit is the variable frequency drive.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 74. Coli discloses that “[b]lender module 40 can . . . include a control cabin 53 for housing equipment controls for first blender unit 47a and second blender unit 47b, and can further include appropriate drives and coolers as required.” Ex. 1004, 10:4–7 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s declarant interprets these “drives” to be variable frequency drives. Ex. 1003 ¶ 76. We credit this testimony of Dr. Durham, which neither Patent Owner nor its declarants address squarely. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Coli and Dr. Durham’s” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner asserts that it “uses Petitioners’ proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 5. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision adopt it as our own.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that, by their plain language, the claims recite a plurality of variable frequency drives, with each of the variable frequency drive connected to either the first motor or a second motor. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 16:1–4; see also Ex. 2015 ¶ 48 (Patent Owner’s declarant testifying that “the ‘724 [patent] claims indicate that the plurality of electric control VFDs need to be coupled to either the first motor or the second motors.”). Coli discloses such an arrangement. Coli discloses that, “[b]ecause [its] electric motors are controlled by variable frequency drives, absolute control of all equipment on location can be maintained from one central point.” Ex. 1004, 11:10–12 (emphasis added). Coli discloses that “[t]ypically, each fracturing module 20 will be associated with a drive housing for controlling electric motor 21 and pumps 22, as well as an electrical transformer and drive unit 50.” Id. at 7:45–50. Petitioner’s declarant testifies that “the drive unit is the variable frequency drive.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 74. Coli discloses that “[b]lender module 40 can . . . include a control cabin 53 for housing equipment controls for first blender unit 47a and second blender unit 47b, and can further include appropriate drives and coolers as required.” Ex. 1004, 10:4–7 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s declarant interprets these “drives” to be variable frequency drives. Ex. 1003 ¶ 76. We credit this testimony of Dr. Durham, which neither Patent Owner nor its declarants address squarely. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Coli and Dr. Durham’s testimony support Petitioner’s contentions. g. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 10, and 17 are anticipated by Coli.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“blending of a fluid from the fluid source with a fluid additive from the fluid additive source to generate the fracturing fluid,” and that its “electric blending operation permits greater accuracy and control of fracturing fluid additives.” Ex. 1004, 3:14–17, 8:64–66. Petitioner’s declarant interprets this discussion to disclose a hydration unit. Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Payne discloses a fracturing system with a hydration unit including an electric-motor drive and a programmable automation controller (PAC). Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 88–89. Payne discloses that its programmable automation controllers communicate with variable frequency drives. Id. ¶ 39. Petitioner’s declarant interprets Payne’s electric-motor drive to be a variable frequency drive. Ex. 1003 ¶ 141. Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to include these features of Payne’s hydration unit in Coli’s system “because such an improvement represents the use of a known technique (i.e., the VFD-controlled and trailer-mounted hydration unit) to predictably improve a similar system (i.e., the system of Coli) in the same way.” Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 138; KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–186). 6 Petitioner cites to West’s Supreme Court Reporter (“127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740”) rather than the official United States Reports. Pet. 51. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and those set forth in § II.E above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the limitations of claim 9 are disclosed by the combination of Coli and Payne, and that Petitioner has set forth reasoning with rational underpinning why it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of these references to arrive at the claimed subject matter. See, e.g., Pet. 51.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 10,280,724 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,280,724 - Apple Inc. v. Memoryweb, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jun 10, 2022 · PGR2022-00006 · APJ Jason M Repko · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR of claims 1–59 on all grounds, finding claim 1 more likely than not obvious over A3UM.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of post-grant review requires that the petition, if not rebutted, demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Applying that standard, we institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008). At this stage and on the current record, we also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that the manual was not publicly accessible. See Prelim. Resp. 20– 25; Sur-reply 4–5. Rather, we preliminarily determine for institution that the declaration of Matthew Birdsell (Ex. 1020) sufficiently supports Petitioner’s assertions on this issue. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“For example, we preliminarily agree that “A3UM’s Viewer and Browser interfaces also both use a gallery design, where a row of items is displayed above a larger viewer interface displaying one item in greater detail.” Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 129). Also, like the Browser’s Grid view, the Faces browser displays a grid of thumbnail images. See id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1005, 80, 216). Considering these teachings, we preliminarily agree that “A3UM’s disclosure of both Grid and Filmstrip (+Viewer) options for the own benefits, and implementing an interface using one or the other would have involved only routine skill.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 131). At this stage and on this record, Petitioner also sufficiently shows that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to modify the Faces browser to adopt a Viewer/Browser arrangement that displays selected images ‘at full size.’” Id. at 35. For example, Petitioner asserts that the proposed modification would benefit users of the Viewer, allowing them to “(1) ‘examine an image at its full size’; (2) ‘apply adjustments, keywords, and metadata to an image in the Viewer’; (3) customize how images are displayed, such as ‘at full resolution’ and with ‘metadata,’ and (4) use the Loupe tool, i.e., a magnifying glass.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 51, 260, 266; Ex. 1003 ¶ 132). According to the Petition, “Doing so could improve the usability of A3UM’s face confirmation process for detected yet unconfirmed faces by allowing the user to review unconfirmed images ‘at full size’ before confirming them.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 133; Ex. 1005, 419–420, 424–425). Thus, at this stage and for institution, we preliminarily determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that the subject matter recited in the person-view limitations would have been obvious.” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Instituted
“The test for written-description sufficiency “is whether the specification ‘reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of [the relevant time].’” In re Glob. IP Holdings LLC, 927 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351). Here, the Petition relies on Dr. Terveen’s analysis of how a skilled artisan would have viewed Figure 6. Pet. 92 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 316). Dr. Terveen explains that Figure 6 contains multiple copies of the same person-name combination. Ex. 1003 ¶ 316. In Dr. Terveen’s view, these repeated thumbnails would not be simultaneously the claimed first thumbnail and first digital file, “which a skilled artisan would understand to mean they are not the same.” Id. Dr. Terveen asserts that there is no association between the duplicated thumbnails. Id. In at least this way, we preliminarily determine that the Petition’s written-description challenge conveyed to those skilled in the art.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,017,020 - PTAB · Feb 17, 2022 · IPR2021-01315 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the circumstances here warrant exercise of discretion to deny the Petition. Patent Owner cites to our precedential case General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017). Prelim. Sur-reply 1–2. Patent Owner’s arguments for exercising discretion to deny institution, however, do not correspond to typically considered factors articulated in General Plastic because, as both parties indicate, this is not a case of followon petitions or multiple petitions challenging the ’500 patent. Prelim. Reply 3; Prelim. Sur-reply 1. There has only been a single petition for inter partes review filed against the ’500 patent. Prelim. Reply 3. Patent Owner cites to no other Board decisions with sufficiently similar circumstances where we exercised discretion to deny a Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Patent Owner contends that we should exercise the Director’s discretion to deny institution for a number of reasons, for example, because Petitioner’s challenges to Patent Owner’s patents are allegedly “an attempt to weaponize the IPR process, and impose increased costs and leverage on USWS’s valuable technology in an attempt to overtake this sector of the market.” Prelim. Resp. 15. We have considered all of Patent Owner’s allegations and are not persuaded that exercising discretion is warranted. Patent Owner’s allegations are not supported by sufficient evidence and, to the contrary, it is undisputed that Patent Owner has asserted seven of its patents against Petitioner in district court litigation. Petitioner expresses reasonable concern that Patent Owner may initiate additional district court litigation regarding its as yet unasserted patents. See Prelim. Reply 2.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Although Broussard was presented to the Office, we find that the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied, because the Petition does not assert Broussard alone. Rather, Broussard is asserted in combination with Kaarstad in every ground set forth in the Petition. Pet. 14. Kaarstand was not presented to the Office during prosecution. Pet. 14. Patent Owner asserts that Kaarstad is cumulative of Seiver and Kristensen; on the record before us, we agree with Petitioner that it is not. Prelim. Resp. 27–30, Prelim. Reply 5. Specifically, we agree with Petitioner that “Kaarstad includes a power distribution network with two switchgear units and a tiebreaker coupled therebetween.” Prelim. Reply 5 (citing Pet. 24–29). We further agree with Petitioner that these elements disclosed in Kaarstad (i.e. two switchgear units and a tiebreaker coupled therebetween) are the same elements that Patent Owner used to overcome the Examiner’s rejection based on Seiver. Prelim. Reply 5; Ex. 1004, 39. In addition, we agree with Petitioner that Kristensen was never relied on by the Examiner during the underlying prosecution, and that Kristensen merely discloses a single switchgear as opposed to the two switchgears and tiebraker required by the claims. Prelim. Reply 5; Ex. 2002, Abst., 7:52. For these reasons, we determine that Kaarstad is not cumulative of Siever or Kristensen. Thus, the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied because the combination of references asserted in the Petition was not presented previously to the Office. Under the circumstances presented here, we determine that exercising discretion to deny the Petition under § 325(d) is unwarranted.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating that claims 1–11 and 13–19 of the ’500 patent are obvious over Broussard and Kaarstad.” slip op. at 31
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“arguments are persuasive. Specifically, we are persuaded that the ’500 patent is not entitled to priority to the November 16, 2012, filing date of the ’085 application because the ’500 patent and the ’085 application do not share any common inventors. See U.S.C. § 120 (“which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application”); 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(d)(1) (“Each prior-filed application must name the inventor or a joint inventor named in the later-filed application as the inventor or a joint inventor”). The ’500 patent names Jared Oehring and Brandon N. Hinderliter as inventors. Ex. 1001, code (72). The ’085 application names Joel N. Broussard, Jeff McPherson, and Robert Kurtz as inventors. Ex. 1004, code (72). We have reviewed the ’085 application and determine that the ’085 applications fails to include sufficient written description as required by 35 U.S.C. § 120 for the following limitations of independent claims 1 and 14: “at least two switch gear units” (Ex. 1001, 15:44, claim 1; id. at 16:63, claim 14); and “tie breaker electrically coupled between each of the at least two switchgear units” (id. at 15:48–49, claim 1; id. at 16:66– 67). See generally Ex. 1005. Accordingly, on this record, we are persuaded that the effective filing date of the ’500 patent is April 15, 2016.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,893,500 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 2, 2020 · PGR2019-00018 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or inventive concept; the § 112(b) and § 112(d) challenges were not shown.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'IneligibleStep1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that “the holding in In re Smith does not require that the claims be directed to rules for playing a ‘particular’ game.” Pet. Reply 5. Rather, the Federal Circuit held that “claims, describing a set of rules for a game, are drawn to an abstract idea.” In re Smith, 815 F.3d at 819. Notably, the Federal Circuit did not require that such rules only be applicable to a particular game. Id. Further, we agree that the claims at issue are similar to those in Planet Bingo as explained by Petitioner in its Reply. See Pet. Reply 6–8; see also Ex. 1009, 11.” slip op. at 14
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Pet. Reply 9. The claimed “input face” is simply not claimed in sufficient detail to require the type of specific user interface found to transform the claims into a practical application in Core Wireless, DDR Holdings, and other similar cases. Rather, as admitted by Patent Owner’s expert, the claims recite a generic “input face.” See Ex. 1005, 52:16–20, 78:22–79:1, 79:13–18, 108:11–109:8.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Petition, Petitioner does not proffer a definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Pet. In its Response, Patent Owner does not provide a definition either. See generally PO Resp. In its Reply, Petitioner relies on the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Shamos, that a person of ordinary skill in the art has “two years of experience implementing interactive software having touchscreen user interfaces.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 38). In its Sur-Reply. Patent Owner essentially agrees with Petitioner’s definition, but asserts that this definition does not require such a person to have personally written code for touchscreen user interfaces. See PO Sur-Reply 5. Having reviewed the entire record in this proceeding, we agree with both Petitioner and Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “two years of experience implementing interactive software having touchscreen user interfaces” as this is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the ’799 patent and evidence of record. Pet. Reply 2; PO Sur-Reply 5. We further agree with Patent Owner that such a person need not have personally written code for such implementation for the same reasons.” slip op. at 37
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable
“We find unpersuasive Petitioner’s contentions regarding the claim terms “direction” and “direction operation,” as well as the limitation “moving . . . one or more of the plurality of associated objects as a group.” Dec. 24. Specifically, we credit Dr. Shamos’s testimony that the terms “direction” and “direction operation” is not indefinite and that, although the limitation “moving . . . one or more of the plurality of associated objects as a group” may be broad, it is not indefinite. Id. Having considered the entire record in this proceeding, Petitioner has not demonstrated that claims 1–20 are indefinite. 4. Conclusion Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated that claims 1–20 fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 9,891,799 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,891,799
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.