• Dynaenergetics Europe GmbH / Dynaenergetics US, Inc. v. Qinetiq LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · PGR2023-00003 · APJ William A Capp · PGR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–5 not unpatentable; Petitioner failed to prove its asserted §101, §102, §103, and §112 grounds, including indefiniteness and written-description challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “prevail, Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Serra testifies that he is familiar with the” slip op. at 45

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

    “process of claim 1. The first principal decision is the selection of a known liner design from a library that is made at the beginning of the design process. The second principal decision is made at the conclusion of the design process where a “final liner design” emerges after hole shapes produced by modified liners converge toward the desired hole shape. A person of ordinary skill in the art, having read claim 1 in context, would understand that the term “optimized” in the claim refers to the hole shape of the known liner design that is selected from among the known liner designs in the library during the selection step of the claim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would similarly understand that the design that is chosen in the initial selection process is “optimized” with respect to the population of known liner designs in the library as opposed to being “optimized” relative to liner designs produced during the later varying and modelling steps of the design process.” slip op. at 26

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that claims 1–5 of the ’039” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,215,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Bilski · Phillips · Markman · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,215,039
• Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 8, 2018 · PGR2017-00002 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 112(a) for lack of written description; Petitioner did not prove lack of enablement.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “Written Description and the ’506 Application The test for written description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Written Description and the ’506 Application The test for written description is an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a POSA. Using this test, the invention must be described in a manner sufficient to demonstrate that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Written description is a question of fact judged as of the relevant filing date. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An ipsis verbis disclosure, however, is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement. Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The disclosure need only reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor had possession of the subject matter in question, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described in the specification. Id.; see Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 23

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledNot shown unpatentable

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), enablement is separate and distinct from the written-description requirement. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1344. “The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.” United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[A] patent specification complies with the statute even if a ‘reasonable’ amount of routine experimentation is required in order to practice a claimed invention.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). These factors, referred to as the Wands factors, include: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breath of the claims. Wands, 858 F.2d at 737. It is Petitioner’s burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims of the ’989 patent lack enablement. 35 U.S.C. § 326(e). Petitioner’s evidence and argument does not sufficiently establish that the ’989 patent fails to teach those in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See PO Resp. 58–66. The Petition does not address the Wands factors sufficiently so as to show that undue experimentation is required to make or use the claimed invention. For example, neither the Petition nor Dr. Pearce sufficiently addresses the state of the prior art or the relative skill of those in the art. See Pet. 64–65; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 145–152; PO Resp. 62. As Patent Owner argues, this is an “omission[] that [is] particularly fatal” to Petitioner’s enablement argument, because Petitioner argues that mechanical expansion and inflation expansion are incompatible and cannot be combined. PO Resp. 62; see Pet. 30–38, 64. Dr. Grundfest, however, testifies that it was well known to combine mechanical and balloon-based expansion in surgical devices. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 132–136; PO Resp. 56. During cross-examination, Dr. Pearce testified that he “thought about the state-of-the-art in minimally invasive surgery during the 1990s.” Ex. 2003 18:1–14. Dr. Pearce’s testimony is conclusory and does not sufficiently address whether he considered whether it was well known to combine mechanical expansion and inflation expansion in surgical devices. For another example, relying upon the testimony of Dr. Pearce, the Petition asserts that a redesign of the expansion design disclosed in the ’989 patent “would take a substantial amount of time and cost to achieve.” Pet. 65 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 149). Likewise, Dr. Pearce testifies, “[s]uch a redesign would take a substantial amount of time and cost to achieve.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 149. Dr. Pearce, however, does not explain sufficiently why combining mechanical expansion and inflation expansion would require a substantial amount of time and cost. See id. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1–19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of enablement.” slip op. at 33

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). We are not persuaded that Dr. Pearce’s testimony concerning the level of skill in the art is erroneous to the extent it does not explicitly require experience related to devices used for uterine surgical procedures or surgical devices that employ expandable inflation-based and mechanical-based components. Patent Owner’s argument and Dr. Grundfest’s testimony is inconsistent with the ’989 patent, which does not disclose an ablation device or method of using an ablation device that solves problems unique to endometrial ablation or unique to surgical devices that employ expandable inflation-based and mechanical-based components. The ’989 patent does not limit the art to be “the field of minimally invasive surgical and uterine devices” (Ex. 2005 ¶ 60). The ’989 patent states: “The present invention relates generally to the field of apparatuses and methods for ablating or coagulating the interior surfaces of body organs. Specifically, it relates to an apparatus and method for ablating the interior linings of body organs such as the uterus and gallbladder.” Ex. 1001, 1:20–24; see also id. at 2:36–38 (“The present invention is an apparatus and method of ablation and/or coagulating tissue, such as that of the uterus or other organ”).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,247,989 unpatentable
  § 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 9,247,989
• 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
• Shinn Fu Company Of America, Inc. / Shinn Fu Corporation v. The Tire Hanger CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00208 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable under the stated §102 and §103 grounds; the motion to amend is granted, and substitute claims 6–10 are patentable over the prior art of record.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “that requires construction beyond what was done at the time of institution. Specifically, substitute claim 6 replaces the term “placing” with the new term “hanging.” We see no reason to interpret “hanging” apart from its plain and ordinary meaning. Thus, consistent with its dictionary definition, we construe “hanging” as “to fasten to some elevated point without support from below.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. (2000) (emphasis added). The substitute claims also use the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” which Shinn Fu argues should be construed presumptively as equivalent to “comprising.” Opp. 3–4 (citing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03). Tire Hanger argues for a narrower construction because, in its view, any additional steps would “materially change the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed method,” pointing to column 1, lines 26–59, of the ’897 patent. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1002). We are not persuaded that a skilled artisan would view adding a simple extra step, such as raising the wheel to trip a safety latch while removing the wheel from the support arm (see, e.g., Ex. 1012, Fig. 2, 2:61–70), as materially changing the basic objective of the claimed invention in terms of being “easily accessible within the work space,” “remain[ing] out of the way,” and “not requir[ing] workers to bend over,” as made clear in the specification. Ex. 1002, 1:54–59. Thus, we determine that the phrase “consisting essentially of” should be construed as equivalent to “comprising,” so long as any additional unlisted steps “do not have a material effect on the basic and novel characteristics” of the claimed method. PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 1998).” slip op. at 6

  • ScopeMotion to amend, grantedDecided for patent owner

    “enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new matter.” Shinn Fu argues that claim 9, which Tire Hanger proposes as a substitute for original claim 4, impermissibly enlarges claim scope by deleting the requirement that the individual “does not have to bend significantly at the waist to guide the wheel over the hanger.” That omission, in Shinn Fu’s view, makes claim 9 broader, not narrower, because it infers that an individual may indeed be bending over while handling the wheel on the support arm. Id. at 21–22. We disagree. Claim 9 depends from substitute claim 6, which recites that, when the vehicle is elevated, “the human can remove the wheel without bending over,” and when the wheel is on the support arm, the wheel can be removed “without the human bending over.” Thus, as a matter of dependency, claim 9 incorporates the limitations from claim 6 that entail handling the wheel on the support arm “without the human bending over.” That an amendment simply removes a limitation from a dependent claim and adds it 11 Shinn Fu also argues that the Motion to Amend should be denied because Tire Hanger failed to comply with its obligation of first “conferring with the Board” before filing the Motion, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). Opp. 2. We are not inclined to deny the Motion to Amend on this procedural ground. Before filing the Motion, Tire Hanger’s legal representative contacted the Board to seek clarification on whether a conference call was necessary and was advised it was not. Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 1–4. As such, we are satisfied that Tire Hanger fulfilled its obligation of conferring with the Board. to the claim from which it depends does not mean that the amendment has broadened the scope of the dependent claim from which the limitation has been removed. As such, we are not persuaded by Shinn Fu’s argument. Rather, we find that Tire Hanger’s amendment does not violate the prohibition on enlarging claim scope.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner

    “support for its use of the term “human” in the proposed substitute claims. Opp. 23. According to Shinn Fu, the specification only refers to a “worker” performing the steps of removing and replacing the vehicle’s wheel, not a “human.” Id. In Shinn Fu’s view, by using the term “human,” rather than “worker,” in the substitute claims, Tire Hanger has broadened the claims to include “such embodiments or species as newborns, toddlers, children, disabled people, and decrepit people,” for which the specification purportedly lacks written description support. Id. We construe claims based on a reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and prosecution history. Shinn Fu’s proposed construction is unreasonable. The specification of the ’897 patent speaks expressly in terms of “individuals in handling tire/wheel assemblies when mounting and removing them from vehicles.” Ex. 1002, 1:41–43 (emphasis added). Likewise, the original claims refer to “a person” and “an individual” in describing removal of the wheel from the vehicle. Id. at 8:24–30. Those disclosures provide clear support for use of the term “human” in the substitute claims. Thus, we are not persuaded that Tire Hanger’s proposed amendment of the claims lacks written description support.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Komorita, on the other hand, presents a different picture because it clearly discloses what is called a “tire hanger” on an automotive lift. Ex. 1004, Abstract, Fig. 29. Even so, Tire Hanger asserts that the claimed method is patentable over Komorita because Komorita “merely teaches placing a wheel in a cradle” for holding the wheel from below, not “hanging the wheel on the support arm” or “guiding a hole in the wheel over the support arm,” as required by substitute claim 6. Mot. 13–14; Reply 9; Tr. 30–31. Thus, the question arises as to whether “hanging” a wheel on “a support arm,” per claim 6, is patentably distinct from supporting the wheel from below in a cradle, per Komorita. We conclude it is. To begin, we previously construed the term “hanging” to mean “to attach or place something so that it is held up without support from below.” See section III.A.2 above. Notwithstanding that Komorita is labeled as a “tire hanger,” it is clear from Komorita that the structure actually disclosed is not a hanger but a cradle that supports the wheel from below. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 113, 114, Fig. 29. Thus, given our claim construction, Komorita does not appear to meet the “hanging” limitation of substitute claim 6. Moreover, the ’897 patent expressly distinguishes the claimed invention from cradle-like structures, such as that of Komorita. Notably, the ’897 patent describes various embodiments of hangers, each of which is “adapted to fit inside the rim of the tire/wheel assembly.” Ex. 1002, 6:17–21 (emphasis added). Figure 6 of the ’897 patent depicts one such embodiment with the hanger inside of the tire/wheel assembly. The ’897 patent goes on to state that “other structures may be used” to support a tire/wheel assembly, such as “an arcuate cradle” configured “to receive a tire therein . . . to rest the tire in the cradle.” Id. at 6:22–24 (emphases added). Further, another embodiment of a cradle is described that includes “a plurality of arms . . . adapted to receive and hold a tire therein,” and where the tire “rests in the cradle.” Id. at 6:35–37 (emphases added). A plain reading of the ’897 patent reveals that the hanger structures (id. at 6:15–21) are a separate embodiment from the cradle structures (id. at 6:22–42) because they are disclosed as “other structures” and because their modes of retaining the tire/wheel assembly are different. The hanger structure allows the tire/wheel assembly to hang thereon, and includes a specific structure adapted to fit inside a hole in the tire rim. Id. at 6:15–21. In contrast, the cradle structure receives a tire therein, and comprises a structure adapted to fit around and below the outside of the tire. Id. at 6:22–42. As such, we find that there is a structural distinction between hangers and cradles. Although the ’897 patent discloses both hangers and cradles, proposed” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,681,897 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 6,681,897
• Sega Of America, Inc. / Ubisoft, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. And Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2016 · IPR2014-01453 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–11 and 17–20 as anticipated by Schull; claims 10–11 also as obvious over Schull; claims 12–14 as anticipated by Logan or obvious over Haines and Manduley; claims 15–16 as obvious …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An invention “composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Moreover, a determination of unpatentability on the ground of obviousness must include “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The obviousness analysis “should be made explicit” and it “can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In addition, we do not find credible Dr. DiEuliis’s testimony that the text in Figure 2B, which states “registration no. generated from user details added to serial no. is encrypted and re-arranged,” describes the addition of two numbers (registration no. and serial no.). There is no previous step in the flowchart depicted in Figure 2B that describes the step of generating the registration number to indicate that the registration number is an input, rather than an output. Ex. 1025, Fig. 2B; see Ex. 1026, Fig. 2. Further, as explained next, the “user details” encompass text, which further explains why the flowchart is not discussing the addition of numbers.” slip op. at 17

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not reached

    “Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that certain claim terms lack definiteness or written description support, because those issues are neither appropriate for an inter partes review proceeding nor briefed by the parties, we do not address them in this decision. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). For purposes of this decision and for the reasons expressed by the District Court, we adopt and apply the constructions provided in the table above. See Ex. 1008, 53–54, 58–61.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Schull discloses a summation algorithm for generating its Passwordable ID. As explained by Petitioner, Schull’s algorithm combines three ID numbers: Program ID, Feature ID, and Target ID, which Petitioner refers to as X, Y, and Z in its explanation. Pet. 21. The X number has “N” digits, the Y number has “M” digits, and the Z number has “T” digits. Id. The algorithm combines the numbers X, Y, and Z “(e.g., by concatenating them to produce a number” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 5,490,216 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,490,216
• Sega Of America, Inc. / Ubisoft, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. And Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 10, 2016 · IPR2015-01026 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–11 and 17–20 over Schull, claims 12–14 over Logan and Haines with Manduley, and claims 15–16 over Logan and Grundy.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s evidence that the Australian provisional applications conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art a summation algorithm or a summer and equivalents thereof. The preponderance of the evidence is that the cited disclosures from the Australian provisional applications are insufficient for this purpose.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “In addition, we do not find credible Dr. DiEuliis’s testimony that the text in Figure 2B, which states “registration no. generated from user details added to serial no. is encrypted and re-arranged,” describes the addition of two numbers (registration no. and serial no.). There is no previous step in the flowchart depicted in Figure 2B that describes the step of generating the registration number to indicate that the registration number is an input, rather than an output. Ex. 1025, Fig. 2B; see Ex. 1026, Fig. 2. Further, as explained next, the “user details” encompass text, which further explains why the flowchart is not discussing the addition of numbers.” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Schull discloses a summation algorithm for generating its Passwordable ID. As explained by Petitioner, Schull’s algorithm combines three ID numbers: Program ID, Feature ID, and Target ID, which Petitioner refers to as X, Y, and Z in its explanation. Pet. 21. The X number has “N” digits, the Y number has “M” digits, and the Z number has “T” digits. Id. The algorithm combines the numbers X, Y, and Z “(e.g., by concatenating them to produce a number 3 Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Madisetti’s observation that Schull contains a typographical error (referring first to P, F, and T-digits and then to N, M, and T-digits) and his determination that N and M are equivalent to P and F. Ex. 1007 ¶ 41. with N+M+T digits)”. Ex. 1002, 7:24–25; Pet. 21; Ex. 1007 ¶ 41. In 1992, concatenating three integers to produce the desired result “boils down to two basic approaches: (1) multiplying the first integer and second integer by a power of ten (dependent on the number of digits of the subsequent numbers) and adding the three integers together, or (2) converting the integers to ‘strings,’ concatenating the strings, and converting the result back to an integer.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 42. Using the former approach to produce a number with the combined number of digits as the numbers being combined, which Petitioner argues is the one disclosed in Schull, Dr. Madisetti describes the mathematical operations that can be performed programmatically. The mathematical operation provided by Dr. Madisetti is X*10(M+T) + Y*10T + Z, which uses multiplication and addition. Id. ¶¶ 44; Pet. 21. According to Dr. Madisetti, this approach is a summation algorithm and is “computationally quicker” for the reason that “it is a matter of performing basic calculations and processing smaller numbers, as opposed to converting, combining and reconverting large strings . . . .” Ex. 1007 ¶ 43.” slip op. at 28

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “supports Petitioner’s assertion that claim 12 would have been obvious over the combination of Haines and Manduley. As an initial matter, we find Haines and Manduley to be analogous art. The PTO and its reviewing courts have developed and applied a two-step “test” to determine whether a prior art reference is “analogous” art and therefore may be used as evidence with respect to a question of obviousness under § 103. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032 (CCPA 1979). Step 1 requires an answer to the following question: “Is the reference within the field of the inventor’s endeavor?” If the answer is “yes,” then the reference is “analogous” and therefore may be used as evidence. If the answer is “no,” then Step 2 requires an answer to the following question: “Is the reference reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the inventor was trying to solve?” If the answer is “yes,” then the reference is analogous and therefore may be used as evidence. Haines and Manduley are analogous art because, like the ’216 patent, they relate to systems for remotely permitted use of software on a device. Ex. 1007 ¶ 59. The scope of the ’216 patent is not limited to personal computers, but, rather, any “platform” on which software runs. Ex. 1001, 2:52–55 (“In broad terms, the system according to the invention is designed and adapted to allow digital data or software to run in a use mode on a platform . . . .”), 2:24–30 (“[T]he term ‘platform’ denotes an environment to be associated with a computer device such as a microprocessor or other data processing device which permits execution of the digital data . . . .”). Even if the Haines and Manduley references could be considered in a different field of endeavor than the ’216 patent because their intended use is postage and parcel systems rather than a personal computer, they are analogous art for the additional reason that they relate to the problem of restricting access to software to those who have a right to use it. Ex. 1001, 2:40–44 (“In this specification, ‘use mode’ refers to use of the digital data or software by its execution on a platform so as to fulfill the seller’s/licensor’s obligations in relation to the sale or license of the right to execute the digital data or software in the use mode.”); Ex. 1005, Abstr., 1:41–49 (“only authorized meter reconfigurations can occur”), 11:13–17; Ex. 1006, Abstr, 1:29–32 (“the marketer may wish to charge the customer a separate amount for each software function or each variety of data and the customer may wish to pick and choose among the functions and/or varieties”), 2:31–63.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 5,490,216 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,490,216
• SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2015 · IPR2014-00414 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under the instituted §103 grounds because Petitioner proved unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied

    “Seventh, having reviewed my financial disclosure, Patent Owner is well aware that even if Microsoft were a party to these proceedings, the de minimis value of stock I own in Microsoft, is far below the $15,000 recusal threshold. 5 C.F.R. § 2640.202(a). Patent Owner’s allegations of a financial conflict of interest in this proceeding are unjustified and not supported by any evidence. Finally, after obtaining my financial disclosure, it appears that Patent Owner arranged to publish it, along with a threatening photo of me superimposed on a target with a skull and crossbones, on an Internet site of uncertain ownership and operation. See, Paper 21, 2 (describing public release of this information on November 26, 2014). These actions suggest an attempt to intimidate. In any case, Patent Owner’s conduct has not influenced and will not influence the outcome of any proceeding before us. Thus, to the extent that Patent Owner has supplemented her Motion to Recuse, Patent Owner’s Motion is DENIED.” slip op. at 6

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

    “To provide support for a negative claim limitation, the written description must describe, at a minimum, a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As discussed above, Petitioner has demonstrated that the specification essentially is silent on excluding CGI to connect to the value 10 Patent Owner does not cite a specific page, but appears to be referring to page 6 of Ex. 2004). added service provided by the Web merchant. Patent Owner has not rebutted Petitioner’s contentions. Thus, the earliest written description of the limitation “to connect in real time to the value-added network service of the Web merchant without executing Common Gateway Interface (CGI) scripts” is in the claims of the application for the ’894 Patent. For the reasons discussed above, the claimed subject matter in the ’894 Patent is entitled to a priority date of Nov. 30, 2009. See X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[E]ntitlement to priority is decided on a claim-by-claim basis, and various claims may be entitled to different priority dates.”).” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “CONCLUSION Patent Owner does not respond specifically to the grounds on which we instituted this inter partes review. Having reviewed the Patent Owner Response and Petitioner Reply, and in consideration of the matters discussed above and in the Decision to Institute, we conclude that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–19 are unpatentable for the reasons stated in our Decision to Institute.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,346,894 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 8,346,894
• Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. Datatreasury Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2015 · CBM2014-00021 · APJ Michael P Tierney · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–123 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–41 and 51–69 are also unpatentable for lack of written description under § 112.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the evidence of record, we credit the testimony of Dr. Alexander and agree with Petitioner that: (1) the specification fails to describe encrypting the DAT_TERMINAL_ID; (2) generic “identification information” does not constitute the claimed subsystem identification information; and (3) subsystem identification information is not included in the “paper transaction data” of the disclosed receipt. Reply 12–13. We find that Petitioner has demonstrated that claims 1–41 and 51–69 are unpatentable for lack of sufficient written description for encrypting subsystem identification information.” slip op. at 22

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

    “reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Trial Practice Guide”); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” slip op. at 7

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “We credit Dr. Alexander’s testimony and determine that the ’988 patent simply arranges old well-known elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform. E.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–28, 31, 85. Based on the record presented, we do not see how the limitations in claim 46 are significant meaningful limitations that transform the abstract 4 Petitioner contends that the challenged claims do not recite a “three-tiered” architecture. Reply 8. For purposes of this decision, we assume the Patent Owner is correct in stating that its claims require such architecture. idea into patent-eligible applications of these abstractions. Patent Owner’s contentions focused on the alleged meaningful limitations appearing in claim 46 or the challenged claims in general. We have reviewed the remaining challenged claims and likewise are persuaded, based on the evidence presented, that the remaining claims also lack limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea and avoid unacceptable preemption. Reply, 1. We hold that the challenged claims recite nothing more than conventional equipment and steps, specified at a high level of generality on top of the underlying abstract concept. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 5,910,988 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 5,910,988
• Captioncall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 3, 2015 · IPR2013-00545 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over Ryan and Alshawi because their combined teachings render the claimed relay system obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “of the specification of the patent in which it appears. Thus, we will not limit “trained to the voice of the call assistant” to require training to the voice of only one particular call assistant, because the claim language encompasses the invention as disclosed in the Specification—software trained to a voice pattern of a call assistant. Ex. 1001, 2:41-49 (“Summary of the Invention”). Nor will we limit “trained to the voice of the call assistant” to a particular time in which the training must occur or to a particular manner of training that is not found in the claims nor the specification. Accordingly, “trained to the voice of the call assistant” does not preclude voice recognition software that is designed or built in advance of implementation at the source code level to the voice pattern of a call assistant. Nor is “trained to the voice of the call assistant” limited to training to the voice of one and only one call assistant.” slip op. at 9

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

    “For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to an earlier filing date, the earlier application must satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See 35 U.S.C. § 120; In re Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “[T]he purpose of the written description requirement is to ‘ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.’” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336,1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The written description requirement is met if the specification shows that the inventor has invented what is claimed—that is, the inventor had possession of it. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive at the outset because, to testify as an expert under FRE 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, 550 F.3d at 1363-64; SEB, 594 F.3d at 1372-73; Mytee, 439 Fed. App’x at 886–87. Patent Owner’s arguments are also unpersuasive because they attempt to constrict the “pertinent art,” i.e., the pertinent technology, to a particular subset of individuals who use the pertinent technology, rather than the pertinent technology itself. See Pet. Opp. to Mot. to Exc. 4-5 (arguing that the problems in the pertinent art are not “uniquely related” to the deaf and hard-of-hearing). We agree with Petitioner that the relevant field is telecommunication technologies. See Pet. Opp. to Mot. to Exc. 7 (“Mr. Occhiogrosso’s qualifications should be analyzed with respect to the pertinent art of telecommunication technologies in which an intermediary facilitates voice-to-text transcription.”). The ’346 patent states that the “present invention relates to the general field of telephone communications.” Ex. 1001, 1:16- 17. Patent Owner correctly indicates that the ’346 patent focuses on a particular application of that technology: people who need assistance in using telecommunications devices. PO Mot. to Exc. Occhiogrosso 4 (citing” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

  Patent outcomesUS 6,594,346 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,594,346
• SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi ArunachalamAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 18, 2014 · CBM2013-00013 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 11 are unpatentable under §§ 101 and 103, and claims 1–6 and 11 are unpatentable under § 112, second paragraph.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Under Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 901(b)(1) a proponent may authenticate evidence through testimony that the evidence is what it is claimed to be. In Loraine v. Markel American Insurance Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, (D. Md. 2007), the court noted that a witness authenticating electronic evidence must “provide factual specificity about the process by which the electronically stored information is created, acquired, maintained, and preserved without alteration or change, or the process by which it is produced if the result of a system or process that does so.” Id. at 545. The inventor’s statements do not meet these criteria. However, under FRE 901(b)(4) a party may authenticate evidence using circumstantial evidence in conjunction with the appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the evidence. Although Patent Owner has not provided evidence such as hash values or metadata (see Lorraine at 547), the contents and substance of the documents indicate that they are what they purport to be. Given their technical nature of the documents, this panel can assign them appropriate weight.” slip op. at 28

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

    “As discussed further in this decision, based on Patent Owner’s contentions and the language of the Specification, we conclude that the term “routed transactional data structure” fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty and is therefore indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 , second paragraph. See, Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig, Insts., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129–30 (2014) . However, to the extent that the claim can be construed in order to analyze its relationship to the prior art in this proceeding and whether the claim recites patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we have reconsidered our use of the expression “switching a user” in the construction we applied in our Decision to Institute. Dec. to Inst. 15-16. Claim 1 recites that the “routed transactional data structure” is specific to a POSvc application, which is a software program that facilitates execution of transactions requested by a user. Upon reconsideration, we conclude that “utilizing a routed transaction data structure” encompasses using a data structure that facilitates switching the processing of information associated with a user selected transactional application that provides immediate processing.” slip op. at 11

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

    “In our Decision to Institute, we noted that “object routing” requires the use of individual networked objects to route a user from a selected transactional application to the processing provided by the service provider. In contrast, the limitation “routed transactional data structure,” does not impose a meaningful limit on the scope of claims 1–3 and 11 because it does not play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed. See SiRF Tech. Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm., 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010). For example, as explained below in our 35 U.S.C. § 112 , second paragraph analysis, the Specification does not describe clearly how a data structure is transactional, as opposed to non-transactional, or routed, as opposed to non-routed. As discussed above, to the extent that “utilizing a routed transactional data structure that is both complete and non-deferred,” can be construed, we have interpreted it to mean using a data structure that facilitates switching the processing of information associated with a user– selected a transactional application that provides immediate processing. Switching the processing of information from one resource to another, such as from one program or data base to another, is a well-known abstract concept that is not limited to any particular technical approach, such as object routing, as recited in claim 4. The remaining limitations in claim 1 do not contribute any patent– eligible subject matter. The service network atop the Web, which we have construed to mean a network on which services other than underlying network communications services are provided over the Web, is an abstract concept under which customers and service providers communicate over a network so that the service provider can service the customer, in this case to allow the user to transfer funds between checking and savings accounts. This does not impose a meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. See SiRF Tech, 601 F.3d at 1333. Thus, we conclude that claim 1 does not recite patent–eligible subject matter.” slip op. at 16

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

    “The remaining limitations in claim 1 do not contribute any patent– eligible subject matter. The service network atop the Web, which we have construed to mean a network on which services other than underlying network communications services are provided over the Web, is an abstract concept under which customers and service providers communicate over a network so that the service provider can service the customer, in this case to allow the user to transfer funds between checking and savings accounts. This does not impose a meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. See SiRF Tech, 601 F.3d at 1333. Thus, we conclude that claim 1 does not recite patent–eligible subject matter. Claims 2, 3, and 11 do not add limitations that contribute to patent eligibility. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated that claims 1–3 and 11 do not recite patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,037,158 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,037,158

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.