- 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 - Yamaha Golf Car Company v. Club Car, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 2, 2019 · IPR2017-02144 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 11 and 17–19 not shown unpatentable: claim 11 was entitled to priority over the ’918 Publication, and the obviousness challenge to claims 17–19 was unsupported.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“slows the speed of the golf car until it returns to the course—“[Y]our cart has been slowed down because you are outside the boundaries of the course. Your car will continue to slow down until you return to the course.” Ex. 1004, 30 (emphases added) (also showing that “Reduce Maximum Speed” may be adjusted to a select speed as similarly set forth in Figure 3 of the ’569 patent). The ’894 Provisional specifies that the Curtis 1510 controller includes a configuration setting for “REVERSE SPEED,” and we find persuasive Mr. Andrews’ testimony that this control setting is separate from the maximum forward speed settings, “M1 MAX SPEED,” “M2 MAX SPEED,” “M3 MAX SPEED,” and “M4 (HIGH) MAX SPEED.” Ex. 1004, 12; Ex. 2009 ¶ 58 (“‘REVERSE SPEED’ is a separate configuration setting that the controller can configure based on GPS location.”). We find that these disclosures in the ’894 Provisional—slowing or stopping the car until it reverses course and separate configurable settings for reverse speed in the motor controller—establish affirmative support for a configuration as claimed where the car’s forward movement is disabled, but the car may still move in a reverse direction, as required by claim 11. Because the maximum forward speed can be set to zero to stop the vehicle from further movement towards the restricted area, but setting the maximum speed to zero leaves the separate “REVERSE SPEED” configuration setting in the motor controller unchanged, Patent Owner has shown how the vehicle is capable of operation only in a reverse direction. See Ex. 1004, 10, 12, 16, 30. From a functional capability, there is simply no difference between the descriptions found in the ’894 Provisional and the claimed limitations. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 49–60. Thus, Patent Owner has met its burden of showing adequate written description support for claim 11 in the earlier ’894 Provisional. Accordingly, the ’918 Publication does not qualify as prior art against claim 11. Based on the final trial record before us, Petitioner does not present sufficient arguments and credible evidence to support a finding that claim 11 is anticipated by the ’918 Publication.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“sufficiently how the ’918 Publication’s disclosure of a “signal . . . of the violation” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 68) also teaches or suggests the additional claim requirements of “the driver interface unit . . . operable to communicate an alarm to the base station of a controller limiting the performance of a driver command” as required by claim 17. Petitioner recognizes the distinction by arguing “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel . . . of any remedial corrective measures taken in response.” Pet. 25 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence cited, the ’918 Publication does not provide any such notification. Petitioner cannot suggest that a reference could have a feature that it does not have without some rational basis as to why such a feature would have been suggested by the reference. Mr. Breen’s explanation mirrors Petitioner’s contention (Ex. 1001 ¶ 277) and likewise states “that the system could also provide a message to the course personnel” (emphasis added) but no further explanation is provided as to how this unsupported conclusion was reached. Petitioner has also failed to lay the necessary foundation to establish that “common sense” could fill the gap for the missing limitation, or provide a basis for modifying the ’918 Publication to teach the claim 17 limitation. We recognize that in certain instances “common sense” can be used to supply the missing claim limitation, but only if the art is “unusually simple and the [patented] technology particularly straightforward.” Arendi Sarl v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this proceeding, we have no testimony or evidence to establish either condition is met. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Breen explain adequately why the limitations of claim 17” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,480,569 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,480,569 - Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 30, 2016 · PGR2015-00018 · APJ Richard E Rice · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8, and 10–14 are unpatentable as indefinite under § 112(b); the Board did not reach the § 103(a) grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in science or engineering.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 10–13; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 10–13). Patent Owner responds that “the Board should limit Petitioner’s overly broad definition of a POSA from having an associate’s degree in any science or engineering to having an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 12. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner’s proposed definition should be limited because the inclusion of persons with an associate’s degree in any science or engineering fails to take into account the scope of the relevant art, which indisputably utilizes mechanical engineering principles.” Id. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“1. “elastic fastener” In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of the claim term “elastic fastener” is an elastic element for attaching things together. Inst. Dec. 7–8. As neither party proposes any change to our interpretation, and our review of the evidence does not indicate that any change is necessary, we maintain that interpretation.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable
“We determine that the test for indefiniteness that is applied in patent examination and reexamination matters, approved in Packard, should be applied in this post-grant review AIA proceeding, rather than the Nautilus requirement. The different approaches to indefiniteness before the PTO and the courts stem from the distinct roles that the PTO and the courts play in the patent system.12 In AIA proceedings, as in patent examination and reexamination matters, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, coupled with an opportunity to amend the claims, is an approach that is fair to the patent holder and protects the public. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2145–46; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1312–14. This approach serves to ensure precision in patent claims, thereby helping the public to understand the limits of the claims and keeping the rights afforded by patents within their legitimate scope. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2144–45; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313. Accordingly, among the reasons supporting application of the Packard-approved indefiniteness test in this AIA proceeding are those recognized by the Supreme Court in Cuozzo as supporting use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in inter partes review AIA proceedings. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2143–2146. Of these, the most important is the opportunity to amend the claims to correct any ambiguity. See id. at 2145 (“The patent holder may, at least once in the process, make a motion to do just what he would do in the examination process, namely, necessary) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the claim language unclear.” 12 See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1325 (Plager, J., concurring) (stating that “unlike courts which have a full prosecution record to consider, the prosecution record before the USPTO is in development and not fixed during examination”). amend or narrow the claim.”) (citation omitted); 35 U.S.C. § 326(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221. An applicant’s ability to clarify claim language through amendment was a significant reason why the Federal Circuit in Packard approved of the indefiniteness test recited in the MPEP (i.e., a “claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear”). Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313–14.” slip op. at 18
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“III. MOTIONS TO EXCUDE In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 57), Patent Owner seeks to exclude Petitioner’s Exhibits 1031 and 1032. Paper 57, 1–3. We deny Patent Owner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits in reaching our decision in this case. In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 59), Petitioner seeks to exclude Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2016–2018, 2020 (¶ 84), 2024, 2025 (¶ 39), 2026 (¶ 39), 2027–2070, 2073, 2074, 2078, and 2085. Paper 59, 1–8. We deny Petitioner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits and paragraphs in reaching our decision in this case.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 9,051,066 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,051,066 - Edmit Industries, Inc. v. Smartdoor Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 29, 2016 · IPR2015-00013 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 16–17 are unpatentable over Shea and Burke; claim 18 over Shea, Burke, and O’Brien; and claim 27 over Shea, Burke, and Leivenzon. The motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner disagrees for three reasons. First, Patent Owner implies that Burke is not analogous art because Burke does not disclose a door. See PO Resp. 6. Art is analogous when it is: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, if the art is not from the same field of endeavor. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, as observed by Petitioner’s Declarant, Burke expressly describes an application “as in cases where an electrical braking action is required.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 25 (quoting Ex. 1003, 1:18–22). Thus, even under Patent Owner’s argument that Burke is not specific to the field of doors, we agree with Petitioner’s Declarant that Burke is relevant to the problem of braking in electrified devices. Burke discloses an approach to that problem by absorbing energy from a motor, operated as a generator, for the purpose of braking. Ex. 1003, 1:16–25, 3:11–12.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“brake shoes based on the application of centrifugal force. Ex. 1009, 5:59– 63. Petitioner’s assertion is that a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a different braking mechanism as a substitute for a governor to achieve the same function. In particular, Petitioner proposes substitution of the frictional braking mechanism of Shea (i.e., a braking mechanism that is purely mechanical), with the dissipative braking mechanism of Burke (i.e., a braking mechanism that also converts mechanical energy to electrical energy). In this case, the fire door of Shea, with the motor/generator of Burke substituted for the motor/governor of Shea, would operate to blunt or slow the movement of the door on descent while allowing the door to close. See Ex. 1004 (Haas Decl.) ¶ 26. We determine that the asserted combination of Shea and Burke would operate in the same manner as the fire door of Shea—to slow the movement of the door, while allowing the door to close under the force of gravity. Id. ¶ 24. We agree with Petitioner’s Declarant that this would have been an obvious substitution as the use of a known technique to improve functionality. See id. ¶ 26. Petitioner’s proposed combination is thus the substitution of an electrical component for an analog component, which does not destroy the principle of operation because it does not destroy the overall principle of operation of the device. See Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332. We conclude that this type of fitting together of teachings would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle”). Viewing the evidence as a whole, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have applied the teachings of Burke regarding regenerative braking to the fire door of Shea in order to improve operation of the door and to make use of excess energy from rotation. We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Burke teaches that the braking can have the additional advantage of powering another device and that a person of ordinary skill would have sought a substitution of components in order to achieve the advantages of Burke’s motor/generator. See Pet. Reply 11–12 (quoting Randall Mfg., 733 F.3d at 1363 (“doing so would allow the designer to achieve the other advantages of the Aquino assembly while using a stowage strategy that was very familiar in the industry”)).” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“However, the additional limitations would not avoid unpatentability because Burke and O’Brien both use a motor/generator system, O’Brien’s motor/generator uses DC power (Ex. 1008, 5:15), Burke and O’Brien both use regenerative braking, and Burke recites the charging of a storage battery by the motor/generator which is capable of braking (Ex. 1003, 3:4–16). Therefore, the asserted combination of Shea, Burke, and O’Brien already contains the features recited as additional limitations in proposed substitute claim 40 (and the similar recitations in proposed substitute claims 41 and 42). We have already concluded supra, that the combination of Shea, Burke, and O’Brien would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner does not explain why the additional recitations of its proposed substitute claims would have been nonobvious over this combination. Mot. Amend 4–14. Patent Owner argues that the combination of Shea and Burke would not make use of a DC battery by itself to open or close a door. Id. at 11–12. However, nothing in the additional limitations of proposed substitute claims 40–42 requires that a DC battery provide power to open or close a door without an additional power supply (as discussed above with respect to claim 16). More importantly, the combination of Shea, Burke, and O’Brien would make use of the DC-powered components—the DC motor/generator of O’Brien. Ex. 1008, 5:4–15. Burke discloses using the motor/generator to charge a battery with the regenerated energy. Ex. 1003, 3:12–13. Therefore, the combination of Shea, Burke, and O’Brien already contains the elements of the additional limitations. We conclude that Patent Owner has not met its burden of proving that the additional recitations of proposed substitute claims 40–42 would have been nonobvious over this combination. See Paper 15, 4–16.9” slip op. at 23
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteDecided for patent owner
“As to Petitioner’s argument that proposed substitute claim 43 is indefinite, we determine that the term “substantially uniform speed” is reasonably clear to a person of ordinary skill when read in context of the entire claim limitation and disclosure, which requires the application of “more and more braking” to compensate for the dynamics of the door during closing, e.g., to offset the potential for acceleration due to gravity. Ex. 1001, 12, 19–29; see In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 6,484,784 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,484,784 - Apple Inc. v. Tracbeam, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 12, 2016 · IPR2015-01700 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Apple had not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, 7, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27–29, 32, 33, 35–39, and 42 were obvious over PCT ’307 …
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“LLC, filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“1. Whether the ’153 Patent is Entitled to the Filing Date of the ’367 Application Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are not entitled to priority because “they lack written description support.” Pet. 33. In particular, Petitioner contends that PCT ’892, published as PCT ’307, “does not contain any disclosure whatsoever of a GPS handset.” Id. at 36. Patent Owner points out correctly that the challenged claims do not recite expressly “GPS handset.” Prelim. Resp. 8. However, even assuming that the claims encompass a GPS handset, we are not persuaded, based on the arguments and evidence presented, that PCT ’307 fails to disclose a GPS handset. Petitioner asserts that the parent application to which the priority claim is made was published as PCT ’307 (Ex. 1003). Pet. 2–3. PCT ’307 provides more than 200 pages of textual description and more than 50 pages of drawings. See, generally, Ex. 1003. We note that PCT ’307 includes a similar definition section to that in the ’153 Patent Specification. Id. at 11. 3 We also note that PCT ’307 provides a non-exclusive list of wireless technologies that the mobile stations may use to communicate with any of “infrastructure base stations 122,” “mobile base stations(s) 148,” and “LBS [location base stations] 152.” Id. at 26. Furthermore, as Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 13–14), PCT ’307 discloses that the “mobile location unit” in a mobile base station may be similar to that in a mobile unit “For example . . . the electronics of the 3 Citations are to the page numbers of the PCT ‘307, not to the page numbering provided in the footer. mobile location unit may be little more than an onboard MS 140.” Ex. 1003, 102. This is consistent with the definitions section, which indicates that the term “mobile station” (“MS”) is synonymous with “location unit.” Id. at 11(explaining in definition 3.2 that “in some contexts herein instead or in addition to MS, the following terms are also used . . . ‘location unit’ (LU). In general these terms may be considered synonymous.”). PCT ’307 further discloses that a GPS receiver may be incorporated into that “mobile location unit”—which may be “little more than an onboard MS 140.” Id. (“In an enhanced version of the mobile location unit, a GPS receiver may also be incorporated so that the location of the mobile location unit may be determined.”). Therefore, in light of these disclosures and the arguments before us, we determine that even if the claims require a GPS handset as Petitioner asserts, the evidence considered in its entirety supports the conclusion that the inventor had possession of the invention as of the PCT ’892 filing date.” slip op. at 6
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“we are not persuaded, based on the arguments and evidence presented, that PCT ’307 fails to disclose a GPS handset. Petitioner asserts that the parent application to which the priority claim is made was published as PCT ’307 (Ex. 1003). Pet. 2–3. PCT ’307 provides more than 200 pages of textual description and more than 50 pages of drawings. See, generally, Ex. 1003. We note that PCT ’307 includes a similar definition section to that in the ’153 Patent Specification. Id. at 11. 3 We also note that PCT ’307 provides a non-exclusive list of wireless technologies that the mobile stations may use to communicate with any of “infrastructure base stations 122,” “mobile base stations(s) 148,” and “LBS [location base stations] 152.” Id. at 26. Furthermore, as Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 13–14), PCT ’307 discloses that the “mobile location unit” in a mobile base station may be similar to that in a mobile unit “For example . . . the electronics of the 3 Citations are to the page numbers of the PCT ‘307, not to the page numbering provided in the footer. mobile location unit may be little more than an onboard MS 140.” Ex. 1003, 102. This is consistent with the definitions section, which indicates that the term “mobile station” (“MS”) is synonymous with “location unit.” Id. at 11(explaining in definition 3.2 that “in some contexts herein instead or in addition to MS, the following terms are also used . . . ‘location unit’ (LU). In general these terms may be considered synonymous.”). PCT ’307 further discloses that a GPS receiver may be incorporated into that “mobile location unit”—which may be “little more than an onboard MS 140.” Id. (“In an enhanced version of the mobile location unit, a GPS receiver may also be incorporated so that the location of the mobile location unit may be determined.”). Therefore, in light of these disclosures and the arguments before us, we determine that even if the claims require a GPS handset as Petitioner asserts, the evidence considered in its entirety supports the conclusion that the inventor had possession of the invention as of the PCT ’892 filing date.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“GPS receiver in a mobile base station 152 [is] separate from the mobile station 140.” Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 35–38). Mr. Judge testifies that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the disclosure of GPS in the ’892 application as applying to use of GPS only in base stations, not GPS in mobile stations or handsets.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 37. Mr. Judge acknowledges that PCT ’307 describes (1) “use of a GPS receiver in a mobile base station” and (2) use of “the included GPS” to determine “the mobile station’s location.” Id. ¶ 35. Mr. Judge, however, testifies “if the inventors had contemplated and were in possession of GPS in a mobile station or handset, one of skill in the art would have expected them to have similarly included such disclosure in the application as was included for GPS in the mobile base station.” Id. ¶ 37. We are not persuaded by Mr. Judge’s testimony, which is conclusory and does not disclose sufficiently the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). As a result, we give little weight to Mr. Judge’s testimony regarding, for example, the expectation of one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the disclosure of PCT ’307 considered in its entirety. As Patent Owner points out, Mr. Judge and the Petition also do not consider sufficiently the “definitions” section of PCT ’307, which we are persuaded is highly relevant to understanding what PCT ’307 discloses. Prelim. Resp. 15.” slip op. at 7
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 8,032,153
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.