- Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 10, 2025 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as obvious: claim 1 over Cho, Aaron, and Carpenter; claim 2 over those references and de Geer; claim 3 over Cho and Aaron; and claim 4 over Cho, Aaron, and de …
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“application are similar, as indicated by the redline comparison of two provided as Exhibit 1015. Critically, however, the “Summary of the Invention” sections are completely different. Id. at 2–4. The question is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood with reasonable clarity, without the benefit of the Summary added for the ’286 patent/’674 application, that the ՚030 application describes a smart telephone that executes coded instructions to “convert the analog variable voltage audio signal received at the microphone port to the transaction data as digital data.”” slip op. at 43
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Here, although the ’286 patent distinguishes “account data” from “transaction data” in the embodiment of Figure 11, the “transaction data” is submitted by the user to perform a series of banking transactions after manually entering a PIN code, whereas the “account data” is stored on the server, and the token information is accepted from the smart card’s 1001, 10:12–18, 10:30–35, 10:40–42, 11:21–22, 11:65–12:4, 12:22–36. Thus, the claimed “transaction data” that is “accepted . . . from an output interface of a transaction card” and “accepted . . . from a transaction card at an input interface of the card reader,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, comprises data stored on and read from a card, such as an ID number, password, authentication information, or session information, that can be used to facilitate a transaction. The evidence indicates that the claimed “transaction data” is distinct from the “transaction data B1-Bn” described in connection with the Figure 11 embodiment.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“As discussed above in Section II.C, we construe the term “transaction data” as encompassing any data involved in a transaction, including account data. Again, we emphasize that claim 1 requires that the transaction data is accepted by the card reader from an output interface of the transaction card. Cho provides that card reader 230 reads a digital signal that includes account information of card 130 whereby the account information “may include at least one of an account number, a card expiration data, etc.” Ex. 1005, 5:54–58. We further agree with Petitioner that to the extent “transaction data” is for the purpose of conducting banking transactions, Cho’s account data of a credit card number and expiration date can perform that purpose. Patent Owner’s arguments that the transaction data cannot be “static” and that claim 1 requires “processing actual transaction-specific data” are not commensurate with the scope of the claim 1. The claim does not recite any limitations that the transaction data be dynamic or “not static,” nor does it recite any processing of the transaction data outside of using it to “facilitate transactions.” Petitioner has shown that Cho teaches the claimed transaction data.” slip op. at 55
Patent outcomesUS 9,679,286 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,286 - PTAB · Aug 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00658 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
The Board canceled original claim 1, denied the proposed substitute claim as indefinite under § 112, and did not reach the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We have, on the complete record now before us, mainly the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Hatch, who testifies that the designer of ordinary skill in the art would be a person who has a bachelor’s degree in furniture design or an equivalent field or alternatively two years of practical experience designing furniture . . . [which] is appropriate given the relatively simple nature of the design at issue, which involves little more than two boards forming a tabletop. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 34–35. Based on the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of a designer of ordinary skill as it is supported by the testimony of Mr. Hatch. Id. ¶¶ 33–38. We also note that, based on the complete trial record, our” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“In contrast, Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Williams, testifies based on his “experience[,] that tenons are generally included in the larger portion of two table top portions.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 55. However, Mr. Williams’ experience does not explain why an ordinary observer would understand such functional and ornamental characteristics of tenon and hole arrangements. Id. Nor does this testimony proclaim that tenons must be in the larger of two table top potions. Indeed, even considering an ordinary observer imbued with Mr. Williams’ level of expertise and experience, and understanding for instance that it may be more likely that the wider portion includes tenons, this does not resolve the glaring inconsistency that Figure 1 illustrates holes and Figure 8 illustrates tenons. In other words, Mr. Williams’ “experience” does not resolve the visible tension that, on one hand, Figure 1 illustrates holes as part of the claimed ornamental design in the wider portion of the table top, and on the other hand, Figure 8 illustrates tenons as part of the same wider portion of the table top. The problem here may be more eloquently explained as “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood[,] And sorry I could not travel both.” Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken, The Poetry of Robert Frost—The Collected Poems, 105, Henry Holt and Co. (1969). Considering the entire record before us in this case we credit Mr. Hatch’s testimony. The issue is not, as Patent Owner has framed it, whether “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the tenons and holes should be positioned on each of the table top portions.” Reply Opp. 7. The question is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art viewing the design for a table top in the proposed substitute claim as would an ordinary observer, understand whether or not the wider portion of the table top as Figures 1 and 6, holes. As Mr. Hatch persuasively explains, in the proposed substitute claim a majority of the drawings for the wider portion, i.e., Figures 1–6, omit the tenons added in Figure 8. Ex. 1011 ¶ 37 (Mr. Hatch testifying that “Figure 8 is the only amended figure that adds tenons/dowels.”) Indeed, Figures 1 and 6 not only fail to illustrate tenons, but actually are amended to include holes rather than tenons, as described in the Motion to Amend. See, e.g., Motion to Amend 6 (Patent Owner describing, “Figure 1: Removal of disclaimer of a total of four holes by amending the outline of the four holes from broken lines to solid lines.”). On the complete record in this proceeding, we determine that a” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“On the complete record in this proceeding, we determine that a designer of skill in the art considering the claim from either their own, or the perspective of an ordinary observer, would be uncertain whether the wider portion of the claimed table top depicted in Figures 1–8 includes tenons, or holes. It is reasonable that anyone observing two distinct ornamental designs for the same wider portion of the table top would be unclear as to the claimed ornamental design where holes are shown in one figure but tenons are shown in another figure illustrating the same wider portion of the table top. Observing as a whole, the figures illustrating the table top in the proposed substitute claim, the question remains, does the wider portion of the table top include tenons, or holes? See Maatita, 900 F.3d at 1376 (“Ultimately, a patent is indefinite for § 112 purposes whenever its claim, read in light of the visual disclosure (whether it be a single drawing or multiple drawings), ‘fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.’”) (quoting Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014)). proposed substitute claim fails to “inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. Thus, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed substitute claim is indefinite and we accordingly deny Patent Owner’s Noncontingent Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 29
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“Federal Circuit recently explained that “a design patent is indefinite under § 112 if one skilled in the art, viewing the design as would an ordinary observer, would not understand the scope of the design with reasonable certainty based on the claim and visual disclosure.” In re Maatita, 900 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Maatita, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s finding of indefiniteness of a design for a shoe bottom, i.e., a shoe sole, finding that Maatita’s two-dimensional drawing clearly demonstrates the perspective from which the shoe bottom should be viewed. A potential infringer is not left in doubt as to how to determine infringement. In this case, Maatita’s decision not to disclose all possible depth choices would not preclude an ordinary observer from understanding the claimed design, since the design is capable of being understood from the two-dimensional, plan- or planar-view perspective [] shown in the drawing. Id. at F.3d 1378–79. Different from Maatita, the issue in this proceeding is not whether an ordinary observer would sufficiently understand a three-dimensional ornamental design from a two-dimensional figure, but whether inconsistencies between figures of the proposed substitute claim render the scope of the claimed table top uncertain. See Maatita, 900 F.3d at 1376 (The Federal Circuit specifically distinguishing Maatita’s single two-dimensional drawing from indefiniteness issues raised by inconsistent drawings: “[h]ere, we are not dealing with inconsistencies in the drawings, or inconsistencies between the drawings and the verbal description, but” slip op. at 24
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus - Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Mar 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Rehearing
Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted IPR of claims 1–4 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on the preliminary construction of “transaction data.”
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“institute has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Although the ’286 patent distinguishes “account data” from “transaction data” in the embodiment of Figure 11, the “transaction data” is submitted by the user to perform a series of banking transactions after manually entering a PIN code, whereas the “account data” is stored on the server, and the token information is accepted from the smart card’s embedded token, i.e., the output interface of the transaction card. See Ex. 1001, 10:12–18, 10:30–35, 10:40–42, 11:21–22, 11:65–12:4, 12:22–36. Thus, the claimed “transaction data” that is “accepted . . . from an output interface of a transaction card” and “accepted . . . from a transaction card at an input interface of the card reader,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, comprises data stored on and read from a card, such as an ID number, password, authentication information, or session information, that can be used to facilitate a transaction. Such claimed “transaction data” is distinct from the “transaction data” described in connection with the Figure 11 embodiment. We therefore do not limit the claimed “transaction data” and instead preliminarily construe that term as encompassing any data involved in a transaction, including account data. As described above, the claimed transaction data must come from the output interface of a transaction card. Should either party believe that a different construction should apply in the instituted trial, it should explain the proposed construction, how the construction is supported by the record, and how the construction affects our unpatentability analysis.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateInstituted
“The dispute relates to whether the ’030 application describes the claimed “smart telephone” accepting transaction data and executing coded instructions to convert the analog signal to digital data representing transaction data as digital data. See Pet. 14–15, 19–27. In Petitioner’s view, that term is supported only by language added to the “Brief Summary of the Invention” during prosecution of the application resulting in the ’286 patent. Id. at 17. In contrast, argues Petitioner, the corresponding section of the ’030 application instead describes transmitting sound to a PC, not a smart telephone. Id. at 19–26. Patent Owner submits that the ’030 application describes generating sounds from a smart phone and using a “key jack sound pass generator” to communicate sounds. Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner contends that the claim language is supported by disclosure of receiving the audio signal at a microphone port and converting the signal to transaction data. Id. at 16–18. Patent Owner points also to description of direct communication between a “client device” and server. Id. at 19. On the present record, we find that Petitioner, at this stage in the proceeding, has shown sufficiently how it contends that the earliest possible effective filing date for claims 1–4 of the ’286 patent is March, 3, 2015, such that the Cho, Aaron, Carpenter, and de Geer references qualify as prior art. Patent Owner has identified a factual dispute regarding the significance of the ’030 application’s disclosures, and we view that dispute as best resolved through trial.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) provides that one of the “Requirements of Petition” is that “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” “Whether a non-party is a RPI is a ‘highly fact-dependent question’ and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.” SharkNinja Operating LLC. v. IROBOT Corp., No. IPR2020-00735, 2020 WL 6050687, at *4 (PTAB Oct. 13, 2020) (precedential) (citing Ventex Co. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (Paper 148) (precedential) (citing Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012))). Here, addressing whether TCH is an unnamed RPI would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315. There is no allegation or evidence that TCH is “barred or estopped from this proceeding or that Petitioner purposefully omitted [TCH] to gain some advantage.” SharkNinja at *4. Rather, Patent Owner argues that for “once again willfully fail[ing] to identify TCH as a real party in interest, . . . the Petition should be denied on that basis.” Prelim. Resp. 7. In other words, Patent Owner contends only that we deny institution because of “the alleged failure of a procedural requirement that can be corrected under our precedent.” SharkNinja at *4. We understand that” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,679,286 - Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2022-01256 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Buhot, GPC, and Zhu.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“earlier applications, in particular Application No. 11/534,653 (“the ’653 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2 (“the ’218 patent”). “‘It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.’” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under § 112(a) is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlier-filed application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). It is well settled that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571−72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Id. We agree with Petitioner there does not appear to be support for limitation [1(j)] in the ’653 application. We find that the disclosure of the ’653 application—limited to general teachings of a smart card, an operating system, and a smart card manager—is insufficient to show possession of limitation [1(j)]. See Ex. 2001 (’218 patent), 4:47–56. As we explained above, “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571−72. The ’653 Application contains no disclosure of replacing applications, even if the disclosure might render such replacing obvious, it is not sufficient to show the possession required to establish entitlement to a priority date. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the challenged claims of the ’724 patent are entitled to a priority date no earlier than March 4, 2012.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Smith, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’724 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1007 (Smith Decl.) ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner states that “[t]he parties agree on the level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 11. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’724 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that it applies “the plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] for all terms not expressly construed below,” and indicates that in parallel District Court litigation, the parties agreed to claim construction for the term “emulator device” to mean “hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.” Pet. 8. Petitioner proposes that the term “application” should be construed to mean “‘software program suitable for being executed on a portable device,’” but that the “distinction between the parties’ respective proposals need not be resolved for this proceeding.” Id. at 8–9. Petitioner finally contends that the phrase “a portion of or in entirety” in each independent claim means “in its entirety or partially,” but not both. Id. at 9. Patent Owner submits that “[t]he parties agree that the Board should construe ‘emulator device’ as ‘hardware device, alone or containing software, that pretends to be another particular device or program that other components expect to interact with.’” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner “does not believe that any other terms require construction to resolve the issues presented in this proceeding.” Id. We apply the agreed upon constructions above, but otherwise find that no express constructions are necessary for this decision.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that, even if the applications were stored in “generic memory” as Patent Owner contends, Zhu provides adequate security and would not undermine Petitioner’s motivation to combine. See Intel, 61 F.4th at 1380 (“It’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.”). Indeed, Zhu addresses the problem Patent Owner contends it would cause in the combination.3 As Zhu 3 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner should be precluded from discussing Zhu’s encryption embodiment because it was not raised in the Petition. See Sur-Reply 6–7. We disagree. The claims do not recite anything about how the data should be stored. Thus, it is not surprising that the Petition did not address it. Patent Owner raised the teaching away argument regarding the security of the data. See PO Resp. 12–16. Petitioner relies on the exact same mapping, same motivation, and same arguments why Zhu accounted for certain limitations. See Reply 4–11. Petitioner’s Reply merely explained that Zhu did address the problem Patent Owner contended would “teach away” from the combination. Indeed, Patent Owner was aware of Zhu’s teachings and addressed them in their Patent Owner Response. The Federal recognizes, “[l]oading one of the smart card applications already resident on the smart card to another memory location on the mobile device can provide sufficient memory for the selected smart card application, but can also create a security problem.” Ex. 1006 (Zhu), 3:25–34. To address this problem, Zhu proposes encrypting these applications in generic memory which “reduces the possibility of unauthorized access to the information.” Id. at 3:59–61, 8:30–55, 9:28–33; Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 5–6. Although acknowledging this disclosure, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weaver, testifies that Zhu’s encryption is inadequate and that encryption would have certain drawbacks. See Ex. 2002 (Weaver Decl.) ¶ 69. We find this testimony, which directly contradicts the teachings of Zhu that encryption is an adequate solution, lacks sufficient support to be entitled to much weight. Dr. Weaver provides no citations to support his contention that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would find encryption so inadequate or problematic as he now contends. Moreover, we find that Dr. Weaver’s testimony on cross examination provides an additional, independent basis to give this testimony little weight. On cross examination, Dr. Weaver contended that there was nothing uniquely inadequate about the particular encryption scheme disclosed in Zhu, but rather that his “opinion was more general, that encryption schemes known in the 2012 time frame were all breakable with computing power and time,” and thus, inadequate Circuit has explained that “the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner.” Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018). That is the case here, so we find that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding Zhu’s encryption are proper. for storing payment applications in a mobile device’s general memory. Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 26:11–23; see also id. at 23:3–8 (“[D]oes encryption ever provide a sufficiently high security to permit storing payment application on a mobile device’s general memory? A. No”); 24:15–25:23 (testifying all publicly known encryption schemes in 2012 were breakable). However, when confronted with the fact that the ’724 patent discloses storing payment application on general baseband memory using an encryption method that was breakable, id. at 26:24–29:7, Dr. Weaver testified that this encryption method was sufficient to allow storing payment applications in general baseband memory even though it was “not perfectly secure,” id. at 29:8–14. Dr. Weaver provides no explanation or rationale why the encryption method in the ’724 patent, which he admits suffers from the same drawbacks he identified with respect to Zhu, is sufficient, but other encryption methods would not be sufficient. In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner attempts to rehabilitate Dr. Weaver’s testimony with justifications and qualifications not found in his original testimony. Sur-Reply 7–8. Yet, Dr. Weaver’s testimony discussed above was clear and unequivocal. See Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 24:15–29:14. Patent Owner made no effort to redirect his testimony at his deposition, so it cannot now do so through mere attorney argument. We find the inconsistency between Dr. Weaver’s treatment of Zhu and his treatment of similar disclosure in the ’724 patent exposes the insufficient reasoning supporting his opinions regarding the adequacy of Zhu’s use of encryption in the combination. Accordingly, we give no weight to his testimony that a skilled artisan would not have combined Zhu with a Buhot/GPC system due to security concerns. In contrast, we find the testimony of Mr. Smith regarding the use of encryption and the tradeoffs with the benefits of adopting Zhu’s memory management technique, which he offers in his Supplemental Declaration, to be well-reasoned, consistent with the disclosure of Zhu and the ’724 patent4, and entitled to substantial weight. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. As Petitioner recognizes, “‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As Mr. Smith and Dr. Weaver testified, decryption without access to the security keys is an extremely computationally intensive and time-consuming process. Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 6–8; Ex. 1027 (Weaver Tr.), 23:17–25:2; see also Ex. 10175, 132. Mr. Smith testifies that the benefits of using encryption would be sufficient to resolve the security concerns Patent Owner raises, and that any burden of generating a certificate would be outweighed by the benefits of using encryption and the memory advantages Zhu’s technique would offer. See Ex. 1033 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶¶ 4–15. Accordingly, we find that Patent Owner’s security concerns would be” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 11,018,724 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,018,724 - Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 23, 2023 · IPR2022-01256 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–11 based on the § 103 ground over Buhot, GPC, and Zhu, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’724 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., claims 1–11) of the ’724 patent, based on the ground asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’724 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of mobile payment technology. Additional pertinent education might substitute for the requisite experience and vice versa.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1007 (Smith Decl.) ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner states that it “utilizes Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art,” but only for its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 9. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’724 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“earlier applications, in particular Application No. 11/534,653 (“the ’653 application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,118,218 B2 (“the ’218 patent”). “It is elementary patent law that a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306; New Railhead Mfg., L.L.C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 543 F.3d 710, 718 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Patent claims are awarded priority on a claim-by-claim basis based on the disclosure in the priority applications.”). The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement under § 112(a) is whether the original disclosure of the earlier-filed application reasonably would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession the claimed subject matter at the time of the earlierfiled application. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). It is well settled that “[e]ntitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571−72 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “It is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Id. Nor could the claimed subject matter have been “envisioned” from the earlier disclosure to establish written description support. Goeddel v. Sugano, 617 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We agree with Petitioner that, on this record, there does not appear to be support for limitation [1(j)] in the ’653 application. Patent Owner identifies the following disclosure from the ’218 patent (the patent that issued from the ’653 application) as supporting limitation [1(j)]: According to one embodiment, a smart card has a preloaded smart card operation system that provides security framework to control the access to the Smart card (e.g., an installation of external applications into the smart card). In order to manage the life cycle of an external application, a card manager module is configured by using the smart card security framework. For instance, a Java based smart card, SmartMX, is preloaded with an operating system JCOP 4.1. The Global Platform 2.1 installed on the SmartMX performs the card manager functionality. Ex. 2001 (’218 patent), 4:47–56. Patent Owner argues that “this description is substantively identical to that on which Apple relies for disclosure of the “emulator device” and “replace out of the emulator device . . . replacing out of the emulator device . . .” limitations. Prelim. Resp. 26. Patent Owner contends that “Apple relies on Buhot’s discussion of an ‘operating system 314 (running on processor 400) for the ‘emulator device’ limitation (Pet. at 31), and relies on Zhu’s alleged teachings regarding a ‘smart card manager . . . which governs the process of loading and unloading applications out of an emulator’ for the ‘replace out of the emulator device . . . replacing out of the emulator device’ limitations.” Id. (citing Pet. 43). Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner “cannot argue with a straight face that its proposed combination discloses” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,018,724 - Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 29, 2022 · IPR2020-00208 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, and 12–18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Duan under § 102(a)(1).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2-4 years of academic or industry experience in lighting design, including knowledge of LEDs and related technology for driving LEDs. A person of ordinary skill in the art with a higher level of education may have fewer years of academic or industry experience, or vice versa. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“embodiments that operate with a low frequency driving signal in a double-ended configuration, Patent Owner did not recite “low frequency” or “double-ended” in its claims and instead chose the broader term “first driving mode.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). The fact that a limitation in the specification may define over the prior art does not justify importing that limitation into the claims unless a term is expressly defined such that the patentee becomes his own lexicographer or there is an express disavowal of claim scope. See GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1308–09 (Fed. Cir. 2014). There is no evidence of an express disavowal here. As to lexicography, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification defines the phrase “first driving mode.” Patent Owner relies on the mere fact that the specification describes an embodiment with a first driving mode that has a low frequency driving signal and is in a “double-ended” configuration, but this is not sufficient to define the term. The specification does not require that a low frequency driving signal must necessarily be used. In fact the specification, although not entirely clear, suggests that the driving signal may be from a high frequency ballast. Ex. 1001, 51:8–14. Thus, the fact that the patent here discloses a low frequency driving signal does not mean that all the claims are directed to such a driving signal. See E-Pass Tech., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Indeed, dependent claim 15 recites “the first driving mode is performed when the external driving signal is a relatively low frequency or voltage signal,” while the independent claims were directed to a more general driving signal. The doctrine of claim differentiation suggests that the independent claims here should not include explicit limitations of a dependent claim. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“We determine that Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the Chinese priority patent applications it relies on—the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application—provide written description support for the limitation of “a mode determination circuit, configured to generate a first determined result signal based on the external driving signal” and “a mode switching circuit, coupled to the filter circuit and the driving circuit, configured to determine whether to perform a first driving mode or a second driving mode based on the first determined result signal,” recited in claim 1. PO Resp. 31–34, 60–67. Specifically, Patent Owner relies on structures in the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application that are not sufficiently similar to structures in the ’826 patent i.e., DR Circuit 140, excluding diodes D5 and D6, as shown in Figs. 24i-j and 29b. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 2001, 23–24, 29, and 33, Fig. 24i–j and 29b).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“For the reasons above, Patent Owner has not established that claim 1 of the ’826 patent is entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application (i.e., June 10, 2015) or the ’586 Application (i.e., March 26, 2015). Because the remaining asserted claims are dependent claims, Patent Owner has also not established that claims 7 and 12–18 of the ’826 patent are entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application or the ’586 Application. The application that led to the ’826 patent was filed on March 25, 2016. The ’826 patent claims it is a continuation-in-part of application No. 15/055,630 (“the ’630 Application”), filed on February 28, 2016. So, even if the challenged claims were entitled to the earlier February 28, 2016 filing date, Duan issued on July 1, 2015, and is, thus, prior art to the challenged claims of the ’826 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,807,826 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,807,826 - Vudu, LLC v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01688 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are unpatentable over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. does it present its own definition. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the specification of the ’830 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” “SegmentBase,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its briefing. We need not construe any claim term to resolve any issues before us, and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
“not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely because paragraph 253 uses the term “[h]ereinafter” before it discloses “two simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited 8 Ex. 2005 is Application No. 16/168,933 (“the ’933 application”). in limitations [38.6], [40.6], and [46.6]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicates a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. MTA 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 38, 40, and 46 do not find sufficient written description support in the ’644 application nor in the ’933 application, whether considered individually or collectively, and thus, these claims contain new matter.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“rationale for combining DIS 23009-1 with M20060, Petitioner persuasively contends that: A POSA would have been motivated to add the additional “metadata” described in M20060 to the MPDs described in the DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 references in order to enable the client to choose the most suitable version of media content among alternative versions of media content. For example, M20060 describes that the additional metadata (e.g., the extended accessibility element and the usedWith, equivalentTo, bitDepth, minBitDepth, and maxBitDepth attributes) helps “both users and clients to select appropriate representations” by, for example, “1) supporting accessibility, 2) describing relationships of representations, and 3) describing media’s bit depth.” Moreover, a POSA would have had an expectation of success in modifying the MPDs in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 to include the additional metadata described below because it simply would have been a matter of adding additional metadata to the MPD XML schemas described in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1. Id. (citing Ex. 1094 ¶ 33; Ex. 1097 § 1, 1). Dr. Bestavros persuasively explains that “M20060 expressly references the DIS 23001-6 reference and proposes specific modifications to the MPEG DASH metadata included in the MPD XML schema.” Ex. 1094 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1097 § 1, 1 (introduction of M20060); Ex. 1097, 7 (references cited by M20060)).” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 10,270,830 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,270,830 - Vudu, Inc. v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01689 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 11, 25, 27, and 29 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend proposing claims 31–35 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor does it present its own definition in any of its briefing. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the Specification of the ’414 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in any of its briefing. 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable
“The newly-cited portion in paragraph 232 does not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited in limitations [31.11], [32.12], and [35.7]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicate a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 31, 32, and 35 do not have sufficient written description support in the ’644 application and the ’092 application, either individually or collectively, and as such, contain new matter.” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“are not entitled to a priority date earlier than March 16, 2012 (the filing date of PCT ’922), because the disclosure of KR10-2011-0023271 does not support at least the limitations of: “the adaptation set includes one or more attributes or elements that are common to each of the representations for that adaptation set,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 11, and the “SegmentTemplate” recited in independent claims 25. Patent Owner has not asserted, after institution, that the challenged claims are entitled to an earlier date. See Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (indicating that patent owner bears a burden of production in arguing that the asserted references are not prior art based on entitlement to an earlier priority date). As such and for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has persuasively demonstrated that DIS 23001-6, DIS 23009-1, and 3GPP TS 26.247 qualify as prior art to the challenged claims, because Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that the references were publicly accessible prior to the applicable priority date of March 16, 2012.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 10,313,414 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,313,414 - PTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · PGR2021-00112 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution
Instituted PGR on claims 1–20 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 lacks written description support; all petition grounds were included.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“content for output.” Id. at 89. We determine, however, that Petitioner’s argument under Step 2A Prong One that claim 1 is directed to the “obtaining content for output” is not substantially different from the Examiner’s determination that claims 1‒20 recite “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Compare Pet. 37–88 (citing e.g. Electric Power), with Ex. 2001, 193–194 (also citing Electric Power). In both cases, the argument is the same or substantially the same, i.e., that similarly identified subject matter of the claim is obtaining (collecting) data and displaying (outputting) it. Nevertheless, as to Step 2A Prong Two, we determine that the claims at issue in the ’096 prosecution differ in material ways from the ’903 patent claims at issue in this PGR. Specifically, the ’096 patent claims recite a touchscreen interface not recited in the ’903 patent claims. Additionally, the ’903 claims focus on the “output device” as performing the patented steps but in the ’096 prosecution history the “‘information apparatus performs the patented steps and “is integral to the claims” (as the Applicant argued). See Ex. 2008 [comparison of ’096 prosecution claims and ’903 claims]; Ex. 2001, 150; see also Pet. 89 (“the claims at issue in the ’067 application were different than the claims of the ’903 patent addressed here.”). rejection and arguments in the ’096 prosecution history turns on whether the claims in this PGR recite different elements that must be determined to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., Prong Two of Step 2A). Petitioner argues that an essential element different than the ’096 claims, i.e. the output device, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims do not amount to an improvement to computer functionality. Pet. 37–72. We find this a close case. Nevertheless, due to the differences in the claims, we determine that the Examiner’s withdrawal of the § 101 rejection in light of the applicant’s arguments regarding the claim being directed to a specific technical solution is not substantially the same argument that Petitioner’s presents in the Petition as to Prong Two of Step 2A.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“C. Lack of Written Description Support Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are unpatentable for lack of written description for the same reasons it contends the ’903 patent is PGR eligible. Pet. 13–36. The Specification of the ’903 patent has substantially the same disclosures as the Specification of the ’413 application relied on by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 20) to which the ’903 patent claims priority. Having determined that the disclosures in the ’903 patent Specification and the ’413 application is insufficient to provide written description support for the at least claim 1, we also determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is unpatentable for the same reasons. Thus, we exercise our discretion and institute post grant review of claims 1–20 challenged under this ground. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1369–60 (2018).” slip op. at 33
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateInstituted
“in the art at the time of the invention] would have understood that an output system/device could be (or include) an information apparatus. Prelim. Resp. 24. We determine that Patent Owner’s argument has a logical flaw––i.e., the fact that a particular device could be used alternately as an information apparatus or an output device does not necessarily mean that it was known by one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combined information apparatus/output device and have the new combined device perform all the additional functions required by the claims. “The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification.” Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Rivera”). “The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification . . . . It extends only to that which is 1997). Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’413 application teaching that an “output device” can perform the functions of the “information apparatus” including its interactions with the “output device.” For example, claim 1 recites “wirelessly receiving, by the output system . . . output data from at least one server of the one or more servers over the Internet.” Ex. 1001, 37:28–32. At this stage, we find sufficiently persuasive Petitioner’s argument, which we discuss above, that the only written description support for an “output device” that performs the claimed functions by accessing the Internet provided by Patent Owner is not an “output device” but an “information apparatus.” Prelim. Resp. at 27–29.” slip op. at 29
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Mayo · Bilski · Electric PowerPatents in suitUS 11,029,903 - ROKU, Inc. v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2022 · PGR2021-00111 · APJ Bryan F Moore · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the challenged patent was not eligible for post-grant review; it found the priority applications supported claims 6 and 19 and did not reach the § 101 ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the above reasons, we are persuaded that the ’031 patent’s priority applications (pre-AIA applications) provide written description support for the claim limitation that “that the “output system” (claim 6) or “output device” (claim 19) can be an “Internet appliance.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that claims 6 and 19 have an effective filing date after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, claims 6 and 19 do not render the ’031 patent eligible for post-grant review under AIA § 6(f)(2)(A). Accordingly, the information presented in the Petition does not establish that the ’031 patent is eligible for post-grant review.” slip op. at 16
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“Finally, the definition of output device in the priority ’765 Application (as in the Specification of the ’031 patent) is that an “[o]utput device [] is an electronic system capable of outputting digital content … Any device capable of playing or reading digital content in voice (e.g., music, speech) or data (e.g., text, document) is also a possible output device.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (alterations in original) (quoting Ex. 1011 (’765 application) ¶ 89, Ex. 1001, 16:29–41). An Internet appliance does fall within that definition. The ’765 Application also contemplates that an output device is a network device accessible through an IP address. See Ex. 1011, 14 (referring to “[i]dentification of an output device” by “IP address”). Put another way, the priority application adequately describes a device fitting the description of” slip op. at 14
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,846,031
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.