- Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 18, 2026 · IPR2025-00339 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 22, 23, 28, and 30 are unpatentable over Choi, Labaziewicz, and Yu; claims 1–3, 10–12, 24, 25, 32, and 33 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“We decline Patent Owner’s invitation to construe “during a frame” of “independently controlling simultaneous data acquisition with each of the first and second channels during a frame” by importing the extraneous limitations “at some point between the beginning and the end of the exposure interval during which the image sensors capture a single image.” As pointed out by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is unsupported by the language of claim 22 and the ’180 Specification because Specification does not disclose an exposure interval nor suggest “during a frame” is limited to an exposure interval. Patent Owner and its expert Dr. Saber cite only extrinsic evidence (Exs. 2006, 2009) to support its argument that claim 22 should be limited to an “exposure interval during which the image sensors capture a single image.” See PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2020 ¶ 64. Similarly, Patent Owner relies only on extrinsic evidence (e.g., Ex. 2011, 1; Ex. 2022, 1; Ex. 2020 ¶ 66) to limit “during” to “at some point between the beginning and the end.” See id. at 18. When considered in the context of claim 22 and the ’180 Patent Specification which do not limit “during a frame” to an exposure interval, we find that we cannot rely on Patent Owner’s citations to extrinsic evidence to yield a reliable construction for “during a frame.” As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not provide an explicit construction for “during a frame” to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the merits of the patentability challenges. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375. We apply the ordinary and customary meaning for “during a frame.” To the extent that an explicit identification of the ordinary and customary meaning may aid the understanding of our analysis, consistent with the language of claim 22 and the ’180 Patent Specification, we find that the ordinary and customary meaning for “during a frame” is “during the period of time that data for an image frame is acquired.” See Ex. 1001, code (57), 20:6–24, 25:23–35.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in digital imaging systems,” and that “[l]ess experience may be necessary with additional education, and likewise, less education may be necessary with additional work experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’180 Patent Specification and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Owner to show that Labaziewicz is not prior art because the ’180 Patent is entitled to the earliest August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–1380. For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.” (emphasis omitted)), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”). Patent Owner’s arguments fail to meet this burden of production because, aside from addressing deficiencies of written description support the ’854 Provisional Application provides written description support for all of the limitations of the claimed invention. See PO Resp. 60–64; PO Sur-reply 25–28. Specifically, Patent Owner does not address written description support in the ’854 Provisional Application for “independently controlling simultaneous data acquisition with each of the first and second channels during a frame”––limitation [22.3]––the heart of the parties’ claim construction disputes addressed above in Section II.A. See PO Resp. 60–64; PO Sur-reply 25–27. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not met its burden of production in coming forward with evidence or argument to show possession of the claimed invention in the ’854 Provisional Application. As a result, the burden of production does not shift back to Petitioner, and, therefore, the ’180 Patent is not entitled to the benefit of the August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner does not present arguments that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Matsushima to acquire data for images 62A and 62B at the argues that Matsushima renders obvious this limitation. See id. at 21, 23, 30; PO Resp. 33–34 (“[T]he Petition provides no further explanation why Matsushima renders this limitation obvious.”). In the Reply for the first time, Petitioner asserts that “a POSITA would understand that Matsushima’s disclosure, including its multi-channel architecture, synchronous control of channels, and capturing two images that are scaled versions of the same scene, renders obvious simultaneous acquisition during a frame. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1069 ¶ 49). We do not consider Petitioner’s belated argument because it exceeds the proper scope of a reply. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. As explained in the Trial Practice Guide, “respond” “does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Trial Practice Guide at II.I. (December 2025)(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.23).10 A reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. See id. For example, a “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,916,180 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,916,180 - Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 21, 2026 · IPR2025-00339 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 22, 23, 28, 30, and 33 are unpatentable over Choi, Labaziewicz, and Yu under § 103; claims 1–3, 10–12, 24, 25, and 32 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in digital imaging systems,” and that “[l]ess experience may be necessary with additional education, and likewise, less education may be necessary with additional work experience.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’180 Patent Specification and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 20
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Owner to show that Labaziewicz is not prior art because the ’180 Patent is entitled to the earliest August 25, 2004, filing date of the ’854 Provisional Application. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–1380. For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.” (emphasis omitted)), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments based on retrieval of data from CCD 18A and CCD 18B. Although Matsushima’s CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B are driven synchronously by timing generator 28 (see Ex. 1007 ¶ 27), Matsushima discloses that “accumulated signal charges are retrieved by CCD drive pulses applied by CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B, and are sequentially output from CCD 18A and CCD 18B as voltage signals (analog image signals) corresponding to each signal charge” (see Ex. 1007 ¶ 23) (emphasis added). In other words, regardless of whether CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B are driven synchronously by timing generator 28, Matsushima discloses that voltage signals corresponding to the accumulated 8 Petitioner’s citation erroneously includes ¶¶ 34–36 of Exhibit 1069. CCD 18A and CCD 18B sequentially––not output at the same time or simultaneously.” slip op. at 30
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“argues that Matsushima renders obvious this limitation. See id. at 21, 23, 30; PO Resp. 33–34 (“[T]he Petition provides no further explanation why Matsushima renders this limitation obvious.”). In the Reply for the first time, Petitioner asserts that “a POSITA would understand that Matsushima’s disclosure, including its multi-channel architecture, synchronous control of channels, and capturing two images that are scaled versions of the same scene, renders obvious simultaneous acquisition during a frame. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1069 ¶ 49). We do not consider Petitioner’s belated argument because it exceeds the proper scope of a reply. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. As explained in the Trial Practice Guide, “respond” “does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Trial Practice Guide at II.I. (December 2025)(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.23).9 A reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered. See id. For example, a “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id. Petitioner clarifies that the Petition does not argue inherency. See Pet.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 7,916,180 mixed§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,916,180 - Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 26, 2026 · IPR2025-00220 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under § 103 over Wallen and Berggren because the combined teachings render the claimed subject matter obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We agree that Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction is wholly unsupported by, and inconsistent with, the language of independent claims 1, 7, and 13, and the aims of the ’670 Patent Specification. See Ex. 1001, 2:3– 25, 9:32–10:5, 12:51–67, 18:54–19:6, 19:26–42, 20:12–26. Moreover, the cited extrinsic evidence––testimony by Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Lomp–– does not support Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is internally inconsistent and also undermined by Dr. Lomp’s inconsistent deposition testimony. See Ex. 1036, 11:6–17, 12:9–12; Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 40, 48. Similarly, the extrinsic evidence cited by Petitioner (e.g., Exs. 1037, 1038, 2009) undermines Patent Owner’s position emphasizing the intended recipient devices of SIB1. In summary, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction because it is unsupported by the claim language, the ’670 Patent Specification, and the cited extrinsic evidence. with the ordinary and customary meaning which does not include limiting SIB1 to an ordinary legacy SIB and excluding MTC specific SIBs or SIBs intended for MTC devices. In addition, we need not construe explicitly any other claim term or phrase. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. 868 F.3d at 1017 (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a bachelor’s degree from an accredited program in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and at least two years of professional experience relating to wireless communication technology” and “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See generally PO Resp. We find that “at least” in Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’670 Patent Specification and the prior art of record. slip op. at 14
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“filing date. As explained above, the burden of production shifted to Patent Owner to show that Wallen is not prior art because the ’670 Patent is entitled to the earlier January 20, 2012, filing date of foreign priority application GB1201000. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379–1380. For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must . . . convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.” (emphasis omitted)), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”). Patent Owner’s arguments fail to meet this burden of production because, aside from addressing a system information block 1, Patent Owner’s arguments do not substantively address how GB1201000 provides written description support for any other limitations of the claimed invention. See PO Resp. 43, 57. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not met its burden of production in coming forward with evidence or argument to show possession of the claimed invention in foreign priority application GB1201000, the burden of production did not shift back to Petitioner, and,” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“primary synchronization signal (PSS), a secondary synchronization signal (SSS), and a physical broadcast channel (PBCH) including a master information block (MIB).” See Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–75; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 77, 83–84). Petitioner implicitly acknowledges that Wallen does not expressly disclose a physical broadcast channel (PBCH), but relies on Berggren for confirming that the LTE standard specifies that a PBCH carries the MIB. See Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 74; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 73–75). According to Petitioner, “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transmit Wallen’s MIB using a PBCH as taught by Berggren.” Pet. 43 (citing Pet. 33–38). In particular, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated for Wallen’s LTE system to utilize the LTE standard implementation details taught by Berggren,” and “it would have been predictable and beneficial for Wallen’s user equipment to receive the MIB in the [PBCH], as was standard in LTE.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58), 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 63). According to Petitioner, “the combination is nothing more than ‘the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.’” Pet. 38 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417). Based on the entire record developed during trial, we are persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that Petitioner provides sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wallen’s broadcast MIB with Berggren’s teachings of using a PBCH for transmitting broadcast MIBs. See Pet. 33–38; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 11,206,670 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,206,670 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-01110 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16, finding a reasonable likelihood they are obvious over Kim and over Chu and Choi.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable 1 Deputy Director Stewart was recused in this matter. claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least 3 years of experience in the research, design or development of wireless communication devices, systems, and/or networks, or the equivalent, as of the Critical Date,” and that “[i]ncreased educational experience can make up for less work experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, except as to the date that pertains to such skill level. Prelim. Resp. 4–5. Namely, Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner is incorrect” that “the ’171 Patent is entitled to an effective date of no earlier than January 22, 2021.” Id. at 5. For the purpose of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’171 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of required experience.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“claim construction standard as that applied in federal courts in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which is generally referred to as the Phillips standard. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under the Phillips standard, “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “Petitioner submits that no formal claim constructions are necessary.” Pet. 1–2. Similarly, “Patent Owner does not contend that any formal claim construction is necessary” at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 5. For the purpose of institution, we need not explicitly construe any claim terms. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 870–71 (Fed. Cir. 2010). For a claim in a later-filed application to be entitled to the filing date of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must [] convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.”), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”). On the record before us, we do not agree that the ’171 Patent is entitled to a filing date earlier than Jan. 11, 2021. In particular, we do not agree that PCT ’199 describes the invention in enough detail such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could conclude that the inventor was in possession of the invention as of the March 4, 2016 filing date. The disclosures of PCT ’199 cited by Patent Owner to show written description support show: (1) transmission packets for multi-user uplink data, which includes padding such that multi-user upstream data transfers from each resource terminate at the same time (see Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 17–21); (2) performing padding on a trigger frame that triggers multi-user simultaneous transmission, where the trigger frame includes AID information of the performing preset padding before the FCS field of the trigger frame according to one embodiment (see Ex. 1012 ¶ 136, Fig. 20); and (4) inserting redundant AID information prior to the FCS field of the trigger frame, according to another embodiment (see Ex. 1012 ¶ 136, Fig. 20). PCT ’199 does not describe the invention in enough detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor possessed a frame for allocating resource for uplink (UL) multi-user (MU) transmission to one or more terminals that includes the AID field set to a value related to a first padding field, when the padding field is included in the frame. In particular, we discern no disclosure that conveys that the inventor possessed the following: (1) an AID field for the MU UL resource allocation frame is set to a value, (2) that the AID field is set to a value related to the padding field, and (3) that the AID field is set to a value related to the padding field, and conditioned on the inclusion of the AID field in the frame. Moreover, to the extent that Patent Owner’s assertions are premised on the PCT ’199’s disclosure of a preset padding being performed before the FCS field of the trigger frame and the disclosure of inserting redundant AID information prior to the FCS field of the trigger frame, we note that these disclosures are directed to two embodiments. See Ex. 1012 ¶ 136, Fig. 20. PCT ’199 does not provide any suggestion that the two embodiments are used together, or that the redundant AID information of one embodiment can serve as a preset padding of the other embodiment.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,716,171 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-01111 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18, finding a reasonable likelihood they are unpatentable over Kim and over Chu in combination with Choi.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable 1 Deputy Director Stewart was recused in this matter. claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least 3 years of experience in the research, design or development of wireless communication devices, systems, and/or networks, or the equivalent, as of the Critical Date,” and that “[i]ncreased educational experience can make up for less work experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–28). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, except as to the date that pertains to such skill level. Prelim. Resp. 4. Namely, Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner is incorrect” that “the ’186 Patent is entitled to an effective date of no earlier than April 8, 2019.” Id. at 4–5. For the purpose of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’186 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of required experience.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“of an earlier application, the earlier application must provide written description support for the claimed subject matter. Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, “a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also VasCath v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he applicant must [] convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention . . . now claimed.”), Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[I]t is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession.”). On the record before us, we do not agree that the ’186 Patent is entitled to a filing date earlier than April 8, 2019. In particular, we do not agree that PCT ’199 describes the invention in enough detail such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could conclude that the inventor was in possession of the invention as of the March 4, 2016 filing date. The disclosures of PCT ’199 cited by Patent Owner to show written description support, show: (1) transmission packets for multi-user uplink data, which includes padding such that multi-user upstream data transfers from each resource terminate at the same time (see Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 17–21); (2) performing padding on a trigger frame that triggers multi-user simultaneous transmission, where the trigger frame includes AID information of the stations assigned to each channel (see Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 134–135, Fig. 20); (3) performing preset padding before the FCS field of the trigger frame inserting redundant AID information prior to the FCS field of the trigger frame, according to another embodiment (see Ex. 1012 ¶ 136, Fig. 20). PCT ’199 does not describe the invention in enough detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor possessed a trigger frame indicating uplink transmission for one or more terminals that includes an AID field used to identify whether the trigger frame includes a padding field, and the trigger frame including the padding field when the AID field is set to a specific value. In particular, we discern no disclosure that conveys that the inventor possessed the following: (1) a trigger frame indicating uplink transmission to one or more terminals and including an AID field used to identify whether the trigger frame includes a padding field; (2) the AID field for the trigger frame is set to a specific value, and (3) that trigger frame includes the padding field when the AID field is set to a specific value. Moreover, to the extent that Patent Owner’s assertions are premised on the PCT ’199’s disclosure of a preset padding being performed before the FCS field of the trigger frame and the disclosure of inserting redundant AID information prior to the FCS field of the trigger frame, we note that these disclosures are directed to two embodiments. See Ex. 1012 ¶ 136, Fig. 20. PCT ’199 does not provide any suggestion that the two embodiments are used together, or that the redundant AID information of one embodiment can serve as a preset padding of the other embodiment. On the record before us, we also do not agree that KR ’754 describes the invention in enough detail such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could conclude that the inventor was in possession of the invention as of the March 17, 2015 filing date of KR ’754. The disclosures of KR ’754 cited by Patent Owner to show written description support show: (1) multiplexed terminals over respective channels, (see Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 65–66, Fig. 10); (2) differing the number of AID values in the batch acknowledgment (BA) information field when the number of terminals assigned to each channel differs, setting the length of each multiplexed group ACK differently, and, if necessary, aligning the lengths of the multiplexed group ACKs based on the channel with the longest assigned BA information by adding zero padding or repeatedly inserting BA information (see Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 66–70, Fig. 11); and (3) applying the use of the AID field padding and the use of BA padding in a downlink OFDMA trigger process during multi-user downlink transmission to align the length of the trigger when the AP notifies the terminals assigned to each channel by inserting zero padding or repeating AIDs (see Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 71–72, Figs. 11–12). KR ’754 does not describe the invention in enough detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor possessed a trigger frame indicating uplink transmission for one or more terminals that includes an AID field used to identify whether the trigger frame includes a padding field, and the trigger frame including the padding field when the AID field is set to a specific value. In particular, we do not discern disclosure in KR ’754 that conveys that the inventor possessed the following: (1) a trigger frame indicating uplink transmission to one or more terminals and including an AID field used to identify whether the trigger frame includes a padding field; (2) the AID field for the trigger frame is set to a specific value, and (3) that trigger frame includes the padding field when the AID field is set to a specific value. We find misplaced Patent Owner’s argument that “KR ’754’s discussion about Figure 10 and Figure 11 would have been understood [by a POSITA] as disclosing a padding method used to improve predictability and consistency trigger frame” (Prelim. Resp. 12) because: (1) it addresses uplink transmissions and not a trigger frame indicating uplink transmission to one or more terminals; (2) it does not address that the padding field is included in the trigger frame when the AID field is set to a specific value; and (3) it is unsupported attorney argument regarding the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Argument of counsel cannot take the place of objective evidence. See Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We also find misplaced Patent Owner’s argument that “the padding discussed by KR ’754 regarding its Figure 12 embodiment is not limited to downlink transmission and would have been understood by a POSITA as also being used to schedule uplink ones” (Prelim Resp. 14) because: (1) KR ’754 does not provide any suggestion that the same technique can be used for uplink transmission trigger frames; (2) Patent Owner’s argument does not address that the padding field is included in the trigger frame when the AID field is set to a specific value; and (3) Patent Owner’s argument is unsupported attorney argument regarding the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Gemtron, 572 F.3d at 1380. For the foregoing reasons and based on this record, for the purpose of institution, we find that the ’186 Patent is not entitled to an effective filing date earlier than April 8, 2019 and find that Kim is prior art. We note that the limitations at the heart of the written description dispute were added in an amendment filed August 9, 2020. See Ex. 1002, 214–21. In further briefing, the parties should address the respective burdens of production and persuasion for establishing that the ’186 Patent is entitled to an earlier” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments because they are premised on Choi’s teachings as limited to AIDs transmitted via a control frame broadcast as a TIM element. A prior art “reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect.” EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (emphasis omitted). Chu, Choi, and the testimony of Dr. Ding (Ex. 1003), we are persuaded Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Chu’s teachings with Choi’s use of specific AID or ΔAID values as indicators of the end of meaningful data and the beginning of padding that would allow client stations to reliably determine where the useful content of the trigger frame ends and where optional padding begins, with the benefits of improved parsing efficiency, enhanced synchronization, and reduced likelihood of misinterpreting padding as data as padding. See Pet. 46–48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 150–156; Ex. 1015 ¶ 93; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 24, 184), 61–62 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–163, Pet. 45–48); KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 29
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,911,186 - Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00972 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable because Speight anticipates them; the Board found Peisa anticipation and Peisa–Heo obviousness unproven for the challenged claims in those grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as three years of experience in wireless communication technology, or a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or other equivalent degree,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47–49). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s contention or propose a level of skill. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt this level of skill.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“agreement that this claim term should be read as reciting two mutually-exclusive alternatives with respect to the “third parameter.” Dec. 11. The parties do not challenge this construction in the Patent Owner Response, Reply, or Sur-reply. On the complete record, we construe “wherein resources are allocated for data of each channel having a second parameter above zero prior to another channel’s data for transmission having a third parameter less than or equal to zero” as reciting two mutually-exclusive alternatives with respect to the “third parameter.”” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner. The Petition is required to identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Petitioner argued in the Petition that “as properly construed, the claimed ‘first parameter,’ ‘second parameter,’ ‘third parameter,’ and ‘fourth parameter’ are four different parameters.” Pet. 17–18. In the Institution Decision, Petitioner prevailed on that point and “we agree[d] with Petitioner that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels.” Dec. 14. Patent Owner “relie[d] on the Board’s construction ‘that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels,’” and proposed distinct parameters in the Specification that it alleges are examples of second and third parameters, albeit not the same two parameters proposed by Petitioner. PO Resp. 9, 29. Petitioner now proposes new constructions for the second and third parameters that would limit those parameters to the two examples it advanced in the Petition and improperly supports these new constructions with new expert testimony and an exhibit from the prosecution of a later patent. Reply 20–25; Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 20–29; Ex. 1038. See also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”)10 73 (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). As Patent Owner observes (Sur-reply 10 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. 21), it has no opportunity to introduce rebuttal evidence contesting the new constructions. See TPG 73–74 (Nov. 2019) (“The sur-reply may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the crossexamination of any reply witness. Sur-replies should only respond to arguments made in reply briefs, comment on reply declaration testimony, or point to cross-examination testimony.”). We agree with Patent Owner that it would be unfair to consider Petitioner’s new construction. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”). Thus, Petitioner has forfeited its new claim construction arguments and they will not be considered. See TPG 74 (“While replies and sur-replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply or sur-reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.”). Moreover, these arguments would be unpersuasive even if considered. Petitioner has, at most, cited description in the Specification to show that its identified second and third parameters are examples corresponding to the recited second and third parameters. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 84–95. This description does not define the second and third parameters nor purport to exclude from the claims any parameter that would otherwise meet the language of the claims. The prosecution history to which Petitioner cites, that of a child application, took place after the prosecution of the ’466 patent and thus, does not constitute a definition or disclaimer of subject matter for claims of the ’466 patent. In any case, the brief argument in the cited response to office action, that “[i]n the algorithm, the first value is provided by the wireless network for each of a plurality of buffers where the buffer having the second value above a threshold transmits data first,” does not define the second and third parameters, disavow any values from those parameters, or even discuss the third parameter. Ex. 1038, 12. Petitioner’s extrinsic evidence, Dr. Akl’s testimony, does little more than repeat the arguments in the Reply and, thus, is of little value. Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 20–29. In sum, we maintain our construction that the second and third parameters are separate and different parameters, and not different instances of the same parameter for separate channels. Under this construction, RAAUq” and RAAUq’, respectively, could potentially be second and third parameters, as could RAAUq’ and RAAUq”, respectively, as long as they satisfy the rest of the pertinent language of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable
“production, we still would find that a skilled artisan would not have been able to ascertain from the disclosure in the ’421 application that RAAUq’ could take values less than zero. Instead, even if we were to credit Dr. Lomp’s testimony, to conclude that RAAUq’ can take negative values, a skilled artisan would need to program computer software to simulate the ’421 application’s algorithm and correctly choose starting parameters and other context variables without guidance from the description in the ’421 application. This case is similar to that in New Railhead, where the written description was insufficient because “one of ordinary skill in the art must first make the patented invention before he can ascertain the claimed features of that invention.” 298 F.3d at 1295. This case also is similar to Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, in which an application’s written description was insufficient because assumptions and starting variables were not knowable from the disclosure in the application. 849 F.3d at 1058. Thus, even if we were to conclude that Patent Owner has met its burden of production, a preponderance of the evidence shows that the ’421 application does not provide written description support for Alternative A. In sum, we conclude that the ’421 application does not provide written description support for the challenged claims and that, therefore, Speight is prior art to the challenged claims.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 9,681,466 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,681,466 - Truist Bank v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · May 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00144 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Oakes supports the claimed mobile device, is not prior art, and the petition therefore did not meet the reasonable-likelihood threshold.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response 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) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes trial on behalf of the Director”).” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Prelim. Resp. 24–26. We determine that this argument and evidence is more persuasive and better supported than Petitioner’s contrary arguments and evidence. We determine that Patent Owner’s position that a skilled artisan in the relevant time frame would have found clear support for the full-scope of the invention claimed including a “mobile device” as recited and construed as a “handheld computing device” is well-supported. In contrast, Petitioner’s argument and evidence are based on an improper claim construction and lack substantial supporting evidence. For these reasons, we determine that Oakes does provide written description support for “mobile device” as recited in the challenged claims of the ’432 patent and the ’432 patent is entitled to claim priority to the filing date of the application that issued as Oakes. As a result, Oakes is not prior art to the ’432 patent and all the challenges in the Petition fail because they rely on Oakes as prior art.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“On this record and for purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, we construe “mobile device” as “handheld computing device,” because both parties ask us to adopt the District Court’s claim construction. 8 We do not 8 Petitioner does not dispute that we should “adopt[ ] the claim constructions [Patent Owner] advanced and the Court adopted in [the PNC Litigation].” include the phrase “excluding laptops” as part of this construction as the arguments in support of this construction in the Petition are contradicted by the evidence and Petitioner has otherwise failed to support the inclusion of this phrase in the construction.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification of the ’432 patent and the cited prior art. For that reason, and in order to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,482,432 - PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 7, 2022 · IPR2021-01399 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Oakes I, Oakes II, Medina, and Roach qualify as prior art to claims 1–29.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“transmitted copy of the electronic images is a modified version of the electronic images captured with the digital camera, the modified version having a different electronic format than the images captured with the digital camera” recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 25. As explained above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments regarding these limitations. As a result, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that Oakes I, Oakes II, Medina, and Roach qualify as prior art to the challenged claims of the ’605 Patent. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its following assertions: (1) claims 12–23 and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I and Oakes II; (2) claims 12–23 and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, and Medina; (3) claims 1–11, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, and Roach; and (4) claims 1–11, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, Roach, and Medina. IV. CONCLUSION In view of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging any one of claims 1–29 of the ’605 Patent as unpatentable.” slip op. at 28
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“important to the invention is that the image capture device and general purpose computer are communicatively coupled, not their locations relative to one another. See, e.g., id. ¶ 33; accord Prelim. Resp. 32–33. In addition, the ’974 Application does not limit its invention to only those remote deposits performed using a general purpose computer that is separate from an image capture device.10 The ’974 Application broadly describes the image capture device, noting it can be “a scanner or digital camera.” Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 21, 33. The ’974 Application also indicates that the general purpose computer and image capture device are “customer-controlled” and “electronics that today’s consumers actually own or can easily acquire.” Id. ¶¶ 21, 29, 33; see also id. ¶ 19. In light of these disclosures, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ’974 Application to reasonably convey possession of both integrated and non-integrated configurations. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1215 (CCPA 1981) (explaining that claims with the generic step of “adheringly applying” one layer to an adjacent layer satisfied the written description requirement because “one skilled in the art who read [the] specification would understand that it is unimportant how the layers are adhered, so long as they are adhered”).” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedNot shown unpatentable
“transmitted copy of the electronic images is a modified version of the electronic images captured with the digital camera, the modified version having a different electronic format than the images captured with the digital camera” recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 25. As explained above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments regarding these limitations. As a result, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that Oakes I, Oakes II, Medina, and Roach qualify as prior art to the challenged claims of the ’605 Patent. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its following assertions: (1) claims 12–23 and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I and Oakes II; (2) claims 12–23 and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, and Medina; (3) claims 1–11, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, and Roach; and (4) claims 1–11, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, Roach, and Medina.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
“transmitted copy of the electronic images is a modified version of the electronic images captured with the digital camera, the modified version having a different electronic format than the images captured with the digital camera” recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 25. As explained above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments regarding these limitations. As a result, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that Oakes I, Oakes II, Medina, and Roach qualify as prior art to the challenged claims of the ’605 Patent. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its following assertions: (1) claims 12–23 and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I and Oakes II; (2) claims 12–23 and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, and Medina; (3) claims 1–11, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, and Roach; and (4) claims 1–11, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Oakes I, Oakes II, Roach, and Medina.” slip op. at 28
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,013,605 - PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 2, 2022 · IPR2021-01381 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because PNC did not show that Oakes, Medina, or Roach qualified as prior art, so it failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Although USAA takes issue with PNC’s approach to claim construction for purposes of this proceeding, it does not appear that USAA disputes PNC’s position that we should apply the constructions for the claim terms “mobile device,” “portable device,” and “digital camera” that USAA proposed in the district court and, eventually, the district court adopted. Compare Ex. 1028, 15, with Ex. 1054, 20. Because there is no dispute between the parties as to the construction of these three claim terms, we need not construe them for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“2. Level of Skill in the Art There is sufficient evidence in the current record that enables us to determine the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Noble, PNC argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the relevant field of art . . . at the relevant time (2006–2017) of the ’681 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent field, and two years of experience in software development and programming in the area of image capturing/scanning technology involving transferring and processing of image data to and at a server. Less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, and vice versa. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 37, 38). In response, USAA states that, “[f]or the purposes of [its] Preliminary Response only, USAA applies the level of skill in the art proposed by [PNC].” Prelim. Resp. 21. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt PNC’s assessment of the level of skill in the art because it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Noble and it is consistent with the ’681 patent.” slip op. at 17
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“conclusion PNC asks us to draw from them. In particular, PNC appears to contend that we should find that the ’247 application does not provide sufficient written description support for the device limitations merely because the scope of the independent claims encompass a configuration that is not described expressly in that document. See Pet. 16, 18–19. But this reflects a misunderstanding of the law—a claim can be broader than the embodiments disclosed. See, e.g., Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1344 (“[A]n applicant is not required to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”); see also Ethicon, 93 F.3d 1582 n.7 (noting that a claim may be “literally infringed by undisclosed embodiments” and yet sufficiently supported); In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1382 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (“We cannot agree with the broad proposition . . . that in every case where the description of the invention in the specification is narrower than that in the claim there has been a failure to fulfill the [written] description requirement in section 112.”). We acknowledge that there are situations where a claim’s breadth results in a lack of written description support, but PNC fails to show that such a situation is present here. In its argument, PNC primarily relies on Reckitt, but this case is unavailing. See Pet. 13–15, 19, 32 (citing Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Ansell Healthcare Prods. LLC, IPR2017-00063, Paper 38 (PTAB Jan. 30, 2018)). First, Reckitt is a non-precedential Board decision that is not binding on this panel.5 Second, and perhaps more importantly, the case is readily distinguishable on its facts. See Prelim. Resp. 30–31 (distinguishing Reckitt from the circumstances presented here). In particular, in Reckitt, the Board panel found that claims lacking a pre-vulcanization requirement lacked written description support in the priority document, noting that “[p]re-vulcanization [was] not some ancillary feature but rather the very heart of the invention.” Reckitt, IPR2017-00063, Paper 38 at 12, 14–15 (emphasis added). However, “[PNC] identifies nothing whatsoever in the ’247 application suggesting that it is important— much less the ‘very heart of the invention’—that the described image capture device be in a housing entirely separate from the described general purpose computer.” Prelim. Resp. 31. In fact, the Petition identifies (and we perceive) no reason why the relative location of the general purpose computer (i.e., the portable/mobile device) and the image capture device” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We have considered Dr. Noble’s supporting testimony, but it suffers from the same deficiencies as PNC’s arguments. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 42–58. Moreover, in our view, Dr. Noble does not explain sufficiently his conclusions regarding what a person of ordinary skill would have understood the inventor of the ’247 application to possess (or not possess) and, accordingly, we assign little weight to his testimony on this particular issue. E.g., id. ¶¶ 46, 54–57; see TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Conclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.”).” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,013,681 - PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 24, 2022 · IPR2021-01076 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show Oakes was prior art, so it failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–18 were unpatentable over Oakes and Maloney.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner asks us to draw from them. In particular, Petitioner appears to contend that we should find that the ’247 application does not provide written description support for the device limitation merely because the scope of the claim includes a configuration that is not expressly described in that document. See Pet. 17–18, 21. But this reflects a misunderstanding of the law—a claim can be broader than the embodiments disclosed. See, e.g., Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1344 (“An applicant is not required to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”); see also Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1582 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that a claim may be “literally infringed by undisclosed embodiments” and yet sufficiently supported); Application of Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1384 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (“We cannot agree with the broad proposition . . . that in every case where the description of the invention in the specification is narrower than that in the claim there has been a failure to fulfill the description requirement in section 112.”). There are situations where a claim’s breadth results in a lack of written description support, but Petitioner fails to show that such a situation is present here. In its argument, Petitioner primarily relies on Reckitt, but” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that Oakes is prior art,8 and as a result, Petitioner fails to sufficiently show that any claim would have been unpatentable over Oakes and Maloney.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“Preliminary Response and Exhibit 2006); Paper 13 (relating to the Reply); and Paper 19 (relating to the Sur-reply). In each of these motions, the parties seek to protect as confidential certain information that relates to the issue of whether Petitioner has properly identified all the real parties in interest in its Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). As we deny the Petition on the merits and do not grant the request to institute an inter partes review, the issue of identification of the real parties in interest to this proceeding is moot. Accordingly, we do not reach the arguments and evidence of the parties relating to whether the Petitioner identified all the real parties in interest in its Petition and we make no reference in this decision to the documents and information that the parties seek to protect as confidential.” slip op. at 25
§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,621,559
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.