• Reolink Innovation Inc. / Shenzhen Reolink Technology Co., Ltd. v. Throughtek Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00509 · APJ Michael J Strauss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Throughtek-2012 and the Lorex Video; claims 1–3, 6, 10, 12–14, 17, and 18 are also unpatentable under two other grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Bims, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’842 patent would have been a person having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two years of work experience with network and communication technologies. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 15–16). Patent Owner does not provide any proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art. In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’842 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner asserts “no claim elements need a formal construction for purposes of resolving the controversy in this proceeding.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 55; Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 701 Fed. Appx. 946, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Petitioner states “[a]ll claim terms should be construed according to the Phillips standard.” Id. (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1303; 37 C.F.R. §42.100). Patent Owner presents no proposed claim constructions. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See 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 8

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

    “In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “In addition, “[n]egative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer.” Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A reason to exclude an element may be found in “statements in the specification expressly listing the disadvantages of using” that element. Santarus, 694 F.3d at 1351. Another reason to exclude may be when the specification “distinguishes among” the element and alternatives to it. Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Federal Circuit explained, “[t]he common denominator of these examples [(i.e., the reasons to exclude an element)] is disclosure of the element.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). More particularly, “[s]ilence is generally not disclosure.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017; see also Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Accordingly, “the written description requirement cannot be met through simple disregard of the presence or absence of a limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. Our reviewing court further notes that “it is possible that the written description requirement may be satisfied when a skilled artisan would understand the specification as inherently disclosing the negative limitation.” Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017 (emphasis added, footnote omitted). Thus, “it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device . . . A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS RE47,842 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
• Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,681,466
• Vmware, Inc. v. Cirba Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2022 · PGR2021-00098 · APJ Russell E Cass · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–63 are unpatentable under § 112(a) because the patent lacks written-description support for the claimed “already placed” and “issue instructions” limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Pet. 20–54. With its Petition, Petitioner submitted the Declaration of Dr. Erik Zadok. Ex. 1006. Patent Owner elected to waive its Preliminary Response. Paper 11. We instituted trial on all grounds of unpatentability. (Paper 12 (“Inst. Dec.”)).” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “term “placing” requires more than a theoretical placing or planning to place as part of an analytical solution. Turning first to the claim language, we agree with Petitioner that the language of the independent claims is consistent with “placement” occurring after and separately from the analytical evaluation process. See Pet. Reply 3. For example, claim 1 is directed to a system for “determining placement of source computer systems on target systems,” the system configured to “determine a placement” by employing operations to “evaluate compatibility.” Ex. 1001, 40:2–4, 40:8– 36. The second “evaluate compatibility” operation is “to determine if the specific source system can be placed with those other source systems on the specific target system,” which suggests that what is being evaluated is whether the source system can be actually placed (e.g., moved or transferred) to the target system. Id. at 40:18–27 (emphasis added). Similarly, the third “evaluate compatibility” operation involves “evaluating the impact on resource utilization of the specific target system of placing the specific source system on the specific target system,” which suggests that what is being evaluated is the impact on resource utilization once the source system is actually moved or transferred to the target. Id. at 40:28–32 (emphasis added). Additionally, the claim states that, based on the “evaluate” operations, the claimed system “determine[s]” a placement, not that it executes the placement. Id. at 40:8–11. The actual placement seemingly occurs after the final claimed operation of “issu[ing] instructions to place” the source system(s) on to the target system “in accordance with the determined placement.” Id. at 40:37–39. Independent claims 32 and 63 include similar language. Id. at 42:36–43:3, 45:1–46:19. Had the patent applicant wanted to cover systems that were merely “hypothetically placed,” language to that effect could have been added to the claim.” slip op. at 19

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

    “As noted above, the claim language requires evaluating compatibility between a specific source system and one or more other source systems “already placed” on the target system. Paragraph 82 does not disclose the evaluation of compatibility of a source system and another source system as part of the “forward consolidation.” Additionally, paragraph 82 does not disclose that “existing target systems 16” have source systems “already placed” on them. Thus, paragraph 82 does not provide the level of detail recited in the limitation under either party’s definition of “placed.” In addition, as noted above, we have interpreted “placed” to require an actual placement rather than merely “planning to place” or a theoretical placement. See § II.A.2, supra. Therefore, even if the “existing target system 16” had theoretical or hypothetical systems added to it as part of the consolidation analysis, those would not be systems that are “already placed” on the target system.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 10,951,459 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 10,951,459
• Shure Incorporated v. Clearone, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 14, 2022 · PGR2020-00079 · APJ David C Mckone · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner failed to prove the asserted §112 grounds and obviousness grounds by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “As we stated in the Institution Decision (at 30), Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable in light of the descriptions in the ’653 patent and prior art, and is supported by expert testimony. We further find that Patent Owner’s proposed addition, that a skilled artisan would have had experience with digital signal processing, is consistent with the descriptions in the ’653 patent and prior art. Because the parties do not contend that their disagreement over “at least” has any bearing on this proceeding, we need not evaluate whether a skilled artisan might have had more than three years of work experience or whether that would lead to vagueness. Instead, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, with Patent Owner’s addition, and omit “at least”: A skilled artisan would have possessed: (i) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or acoustical engineering that included coursework on the design of acoustic and/or antenna arrays, phased arrays, and/or beamforming; or (ii) three years of work experience in the field of directional microphone arrays; and the skilled artisan would have had experience with digital signal processing.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner that the claim limitation at issue here specifies a single device that has multiple properties. Rather, claim 1 broadly recites “a ceiling tile combined with the beamforming microphone array.” We agree with Petitioner that the plain language of claim 1 does not require that the entire beamforming microphone array is physically integrated into a single ceiling tile, as combining a ceiling tile and a microphone array is broader than physically installing the microphone array in the ceiling tile. Nor can the language of claim 1 reasonably be read to exclude combining more than one ceiling tile with the microphone array. Where claim 1 assigns specific properties to a ceiling tile, it does so expressly, reciting “the ceiling tile being sized and shaped to be mountable in a drop ceiling in place of at least one of a plurality of ceiling tiles included in the drop ceiling.” Thus, the plain language of claim 1 requires at least one ceiling tile combined in some way with a beamforming microphone array, and each ceiling tile (if there is more than one) is a particular size and shape.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Second, Patent Owner argues that our construction “should reflect the fact the microphones of a [beamforming microphone array] are located in positions relative to each other, by design, to establish constructive interference in one or more preferred beam directions.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 31–37, 48). Petitioner responds that claim 1 recites “beamforming” broadly and that Patent Owner attempts to limit “beamforming” to one technique out of several, including techniques that determine time delay between microphones rather than knowing the distances between the microphones. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 11–21). The parties’ competing proposals here are directed to Petitioner’s allegations that CTG System and Levit render the challenged claims obvious. However, as explained below, Petitioner has not established whether CTG System performs beamforming under either proposed construction. Thus, we need not resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017; Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Despite an obligation to identify in the Petition the evidence that supports its indefiniteness allegations,5 Petitioner largely failed to discuss the Specification. Pet. 30; see also Dec. 41 (“Despite enumerating five techniques that it contends exemplify ‘adaptive acoustic processing,’ Petitioner does little to address the description of those techniques in the Specification.”). In one passage cited by Petitioner, the Specification states that an “embodiment of Array 116 may include adaptive acoustic processing that automatically adjusts to the room configuration for the best possible audio pickup.” Ex. 1001, 6:13–16. Petitioner argues that this description “lacks any disclosure providing objective boundaries of the claim’s scope, either through definitions or working examples.” Pet. 30. Petitioner also acknowledges that the Specification “discusses acoustic echo cancellation (in general) as an additional feature from adaptive acoustic processing,” and admits that a skilled artisan “would have recognized that echo cancellation processing occurring automatically in response to a room configuration would be a meaning of adaptive acoustic processing.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:5–22). However, Petitioner does not discuss the rest of the Specification in the Petition. Petitioner should have addressed in the Petition the express descriptions of Dr. Vipperman’s enumerated examples of adaptive acoustic processing in the Specification in order to support its 5 Our rules require Petitioner to make its case in the Petition, including identifying “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” “the specific part of the claim that fails to comply with the statutory grounds raised and . . . how the identified subject matter fails to comply with the statute,” and “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b). Indeed, “[t]he Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” Id. at § 42.204(b)(5). otherwise conclusory statement that “[n]one of these techniques are described in the specification,” Pet. 32. If it was Petitioner’s position that these express descriptions were nevertheless not examples of adaptive acoustic processing, Petitioner should have made those arguments in the Petition.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,728,653 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,728,653
• Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2021 · IPR2020-00846 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “According to our rules, “[a]rguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). For example, the Board has explained that “parties that incorporate expert testimony by reference in their petitions, motions, or replies without providing explanation of such testimony risk having the testimony not considered by the Board.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35–36 (November 2019) (“TPG”)3 (citing Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative)).” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Lipoff, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing,” and that “[m]ore education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41–48). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. On the complete record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology 7 The complete record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. described in the Specification and the cited prior art and adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “proposed combination with Kovatch. PO Resp. 37. According to the Federal Circuit, “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)) (alteration in original). However, “the ‘mere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away.’” Id. at 1334 (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Indeed, “just because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.” Id. (citing Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553). Specifically, Patent Owner (PO Resp. 37), points to disclosure in Neal describing disadvantages of a keyword search strategy (e.g., “users must be familiar with the appropriate key word terms that are likely to yield the desired data records”) and disadvantages of a classification search strategy (e.g., “users may not always anticipate the proper classification of certain records, and may search the wrong categories for their desired database record”). Ex. 1007, 2:16–65. Neal then describes a “preferred embodiment” in which “the system manager will expand the scope of the search strategies from ‘exact’ string matches, along a continuum of search methodologies, including perhaps fuzzy logic strategies.” Id. at 7:14–17. According to Neal, “[t]he purpose of expanding the search strategies is to avoid the situation wherein the search fails to identify the desired item from any data set, and thereby drops into logical block 222 a negative search result is reported to the user.” Id. at 7:28–32. Patent Owner argues that “Neal advocates for employing a sequence of search algorithms from the narrowest to the most broad.” PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 1007, 7:56–58; Ex. 2059 ¶ 124). Patent Owner contends that Neal teaches away from a combination “that employs a single keyword matching search strategy.” Id. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s combination of Kovatch and Neal results in a system that only sequentially searches datasets using a single keyword matching search strategy, and not the cascading sequence of search methodologies described by Neal. Id. at 37–39. We do not agree with Patent Owner that Neal teaches away from a system that employs a single keyword matching search strategy. Indeed, Neal’s preferred embodiment expressly contemplates such a system. For example, Neal describes employing a first “exact string search” methodology to search a first data set (Figure 2, block 206). Ex. 1007, 6:34– 46. This appears to be what Patent Owner considers a “single keyword matching search strategy.” PO Resp. 37–38. Neal describes that if this search of the first data set does not yield a match, the system searches a second data set using a second search methodology (Figure 2, block 210). Ex. 1007, 6:47–52. However, in the preferred embodiment there is no requirement that the second search methodology in 210 must be different from the first search methodology in 206. For example, if the first preferred supplier did not yield an exact string match to the input search term, the same search methodology could be applied to a second preferred supplier’s catalog. Id. at 6:59–65. Thus, Neal expressly teaches using a single keyword search strategy on a first dataset and the same keyword search strategy on a second dataset, without necessarily employing a cascading sequence of different search methodologies. See Reply 19.” slip op. at 39

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “advertisements while waiting for information to be retrieved; rather, it first retrieves the requested information and then generates an audio stream with both the commercials and retrieved information. Reply 22–23 (citing Ex. 1005, 14:1–8, 18:1–15; Ex. 1057 ¶ 18). Petitioner’s characterization of Kovatch is correct (and Patent Owner’s incorrect). Kovatch’s system first navigates to a destination and retrieves requested information (step 6), then generates commercials (step 8), then intermixes the commercials and information (step 9), and finally returns speech to the user (step 10). Ex. 1005, 14:1–8. We find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that, when combined, Neal’s teachings would have an adverse impact on Kovatch’s generation and presentation of advertisements.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 7,076,431 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,076,431
• Google LLC / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.Other
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2021 · IPR2020-00847 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious over Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “Turning now to obviousness, Petitioner identified disclosure within Kurgonov-262 and Chakrabarti which teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. Pet. 11–21. Furthermore, Petitioner identified multiple reasons that would have prompted the skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1. Id. at 21–22. Because Patent Owner focused its arguments solely on the issue of whether Kurganov-262 is prior art, Petitioner’s assertions regarding the substantive teachings of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti remain unrebutted on the complete record. PO Resp. 31–34; Sur-reply 1–3. Patent Owner likewise failed to substantively address Petitioner’s proffered reasons why the skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings. PO Resp. 31–34; Sur-reply 1–3. We have reviewed the disclosures of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti relied on by Petitioner, as well as the explanations provided by Mr. Lipoff, and are persuaded that the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed in the prior art. Pet. 11–21; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–109; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1008. Petitioner also persuades us that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Chakrabarti’s techniques for web crawling to Kurganov-262’s system, and would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully doing so, thus arriving at the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ084 patent. Pet. 21–23; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–114. Therefore, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ʼ084 patent would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner describes a person having ordinary skill in the art as having “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing. More education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 41–47). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of the skilled artisan. See generally, PO Resp. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.’”); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Thus, on the complete record, we accept Petitioner’s assessment of the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. C. Asserted Obviousness based on Kurganov-262 and Chakrabarti” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Rather, on the complete record, Patent Owner makes inadequately supported assertions regarding what the skilled artisan “would understand” based on the ʼ084 patent’s disclosure. See PO Resp. 33–34. For example, Patent Owner asserts that “[a] POSITA would understand that” polling or pinging “describes a process where by existing and new devices and/or websites are discovered,” and that “‘polling’ includes asking for information from a website, including a listing of URLs or asking a website of a search engine to provide new website information.” Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 2059 ¶¶ 154–155). We reject this line of argument because we afford minimal weight to Patent Owner’s reliance on paragraphs 153–155 of Exhibit 2059. PO Resp. 33–34. These declaration paragraphs provide little detail beyond what is argued in the Patent Owner Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 22

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that sufficient written description support does not exist in the ʼ996 application for “limitation 1.i” which requires the computing device to be “configured to periodically search via the one or more networks to identify new web sites and to add the new web sites to the plurality of web sites.” Pet. 6–11. Thus, we determine that Kurganov-262 is available as prior art against the challenged claims. On the complete record, Patent Owner fails to direct us to specific disclosure within the ʼ996 application that evinces written description for limitation 1.i. Rather, Patent Owner’s citations to the ʼ084 patent fail to describe with adequate precision a computing device configured to periodically search the network(s) to identify new web sites and add such new web sites to the plurality of web sites that are accessed. See PO Resp. 31–34.” slip op. at 20

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,451,084
• Unified Patents Inc. v. KCG Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2021 · IPR2019-01536 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious; the revised motion to amend is denied because proposed substitute claims 14–26 are unpatentable as obvious or indefinite.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Petitioner. Proposed substitute claim 24 recites “the handheld device” without antecedent basis. This lack of antecedent basis renders proposed substitute claim 24 indefinite, as we noted in our Preliminary Guidance. Pet. Opp. to RMTA 25; Prelim. Guidance 8 (“Proposed substitute claim 24 also recites ‘the handheld device’ and also suffers from the lack of antecedent basis). Despite having the opportunity to correct its error and amend proposed substitute dependent claim 24 when independent claim 14 was amended to remove the recitation of “a handheld device,” Patent Owner did not do so in its Contingent Revised Motion to Amend. RMTA 31. Proposed substitute claim 24 is indefinite because the claim “fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); see USPTO Memorandum on the Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021)13; see MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020). This is because “the handheld device” is only recited in proposed substitute claim 24, and the proposed substitute claim fails to inform one skilled in the art the scope of invention related to synchronizing “data on the handheld device” “in the virtual smart phone.” Because proposed substitute claims 25 and 26 depend from proposed substitute claim 24, we similarly agree with Petitioner that claims 25 and 26 also are indefinite for lacking an antecedent basis for the term “handheld device.” Pet. Opp. to RMTA 25. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 24–26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite.” slip op. at 40

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “Whether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Absent clear reliance on the preamble in the prosecution history, or in situations where it is necessary to provide antecedent basis for the body of the claim, the preamble generally is not limiting.” Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assoc. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). When the limitations in the body of the claim rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble, then the preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention and is limiting. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A claim preamble also is limiting if the preamble is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 182 F.3d at 1305. We disagree with Patent Owner. Specifically, we do not agree that limitations in the body of the claims require the preamble to serve as an antecedent basis nor do they derive essential structure from the preamble. Rather, all of the elements recited in the body of claim 1 comprise a “virtual smart phone.” That is, we do not discern, and Patent Owner fails to persuasively point us to, any structure imparted by the preamble’s recitation of a “virtual smart phone.” See Pet. Reply 1–2. We similarly do not agree that the without the term “virtual smart phone” there would be no understanding of the “emulating” or “handheld device” limitations. Rather, the recited “software application executing on the processor” limitation provides the structure and meaning for the “emulating” of the “handheld device” features. Furthermore, we agree with the Petitioner that there is no evidence in the record that the prosecution history requires that the preamble is limiting, and the claims were distinguished during prosecution based on the recitation of a “virtual” smart phone. Id. at 2–3. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting. slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “on the process to . . . emulate features of a handheld device.” Ex. 1001, 12:58–60 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the term “‘emulate’ has a meaning in the art that is common and understood to mean ‘to imitate.’” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner provides a dictionary definition to support its contention. Ex. 2004 (defining “emulate” as “to imitate in an effort to equal or surpass”). Patent Owner contends the use of “emulate” in claim 1 comports with its commonly understood meaning as “to imitate,” as does the use of the term “emulate” in the written description. Pet. 18–20 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:3, 2:6–3:5, 12:54–13:2 (claim 1)). Petitioner argues that the term “emulate” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and does not contest Patent Owner’s construction of the term “emulate” as “to imitate.” Pet. 6–7; Pet. Reply 7. Petitioner, however, contests Patent Owner’s application of that construction to the asserted prior art. Pet. Reply 4–7 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 24–26). Petitioner specifically argues that Patent Owner implies that “(1) the imitation must be an exact duplicate in display and manner of input . . . or (2) the imitation relates only to the display and touch screen aspects.” Pet. Reply 4–5. In support of its position that Patent Owner’s interpretation of “to imitate” improperly narrows the meaning of “emulate,” Petitioner contends the written description discloses “less than full replication as emulation” and “controlling the handheld device th[r]ough control of a projected image using a variety of control input mechanisms provides emulation.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:2–5, 3:57–61, 4:63–66, 6:24–42). Petitioner also notes that the dictionary definition Patent Owner proffered indicates that an exact duplication is not required. Pet. Reply 7 (“The complete definition of emulate [as] ‘to imitate in an effort to equal or surpass.’ Ex. 1004, 3”). We conclude that a preponderance of evidence supports the construction of the term “emulate” to mean “to imitate,” without any further restriction such as exact duplication or only display or touch screen aspects. Accordingly, we construe the term “emulate” as “to imitate.”” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at or before the priority date of the ’955 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in the field of automotive information systems.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–39); Ex. 1034 ¶ 14 (Petitioner’s expert reiterating the same level of ordinary skill in the art). Patent Owner does not propose an ordinary level of skill in the art. We agree with and adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art as articulated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 9,671,955 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,671,955
• U.D. Electronic Corp. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 22, 2020 · IPR2019-00511 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–16 are unpatentable; the motion to amend is denied for substitute claims 17, 20, and 21 as indefinite and granted for claims 18, 19, 22, and 23.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art in of the ’302 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or mechanical engineering, with two or more years of experience designing connectors with EMI shielding. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 55–58). Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art is largely the same, urging a similar amount of education and experience, detailing “at least one year of experience with electrical connectors having internal electronic components, or at least two years’ experience with designing electrical connectors having internal electronic components.” Prelim. Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 27). We determined previously that the proffered definitions were largely the same and we determined them to be appropriate for the technology addressed by this proceeding. Inst. Dec. 7. Patent Owner subsequently agreed that “there are not meaningful differences between the parties’ definitions of a POSITA for purposes of this proceeding.” PO Resp. 9–10. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “After review of the proffered arguments, we remain persuaded that Petitioner’s construction is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning in the context of the ’302 Patent. Patent Owner cites to multiple cases regarding the use of embodiments of the invention set forth in the specification to interpret limitations, despite claim language that could be interpreted more broadly. PO Resp. 16–18; PO Sur-reply 8–10 (citing Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301–02 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Cryo–Trans, Inc., 93 F.3d 766, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1550–51 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). We determine that the portions of the specification cited by Patent Owner are not express or implied definitions of the term “effectively curved portion.” See Phillips at 1321 (the specification “acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication”). Patent Owner continues that “the only embodiments disclosed in the ’302 Patent have the substrates positioned substantially orthogonal and substantially vertical to the face of the housing,” and “the run of the conductors must make an approximately 90° change in direction to provide an electrical interconnection.” Id. at 18. Such arguments and case law would be pertinent if we interpreted claim 1, for example, as requiring substrates to not be orthogonal or if we required the “effectively curved portion” to not result in a 90° change in direction. We do not interpret claim 1 that way, so Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive. disclosure into a claim that does not recite such requirements. It is improper to add a limitation appearing in the specification and the drawings, but not appearing in the unambiguous language of a claim. See Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This is particularly true where the specification does not define the term at issue to include that additional limitation or otherwise include language requiring it. Claims 1–3, 7, 9, and 13–16 recite, in part, that the first conductors include an “effectively curved portion,” and each claim recites that limitation unambiguously. Although we acknowledge the varying embodiments disclosed in the ’302 Patent, we are persuaded that confining the “effectively curved portion” to be “approximately 90º” is overly narrow. We continue to determine that adopting Patent Owner’s construction would unduly limit the cited claims, i.e., claims 1–3, 7, 9, and 13–16, by importing limitations that are not part of the claims. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, we continue to determine that “effectively curved portion” should be construed as any form of bend of the first conductors.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “unpersuasive because the unfiltered connector of Hughes does not disclose an internal board, and that any combination of Kan with Hughes would result, at most, in the “second conductors,” but not the “first conductors,” being bent so that the internal conductors mate with the internal substrate. PO Resp. 43 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 124, 128). Patent Owner additionally asserts that the reorientation envisioned by the combination would add to material costs, reduce performance due to longer conductor runs, necessitate additional alterations, and provide no space savings or advantage. Id. at 43– 44 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 122, 129). Petitioner responds that the rationale for combining Kan and Hughes merely involves a design choice, and would apply a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results in an improved system. Pet. Reply 19–20 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–421). We agree with Petitioner. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Any modification of a prior art device will result in changes thereto, as a matter of course; the question, rather, is whether there existed sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skill to make the proposed modifications in light of the evidence of record. We find that Petitioner’s evidence of the benefits resulting from the combination, i.e., saving space for the connector assembly and reorienting the plug-receiving opening for insertion of a connector plug in accordance with the desired implementation based on where the housing is mounted, provide sufficient motivation to make these changes, and that Patent Owner’s arguments about the materials costs and possible reduced performance are insufficient to defeat the evidence of motivation to combine.” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “Kan is the product of impermissible hindsight, and the combination would change the basic principles of operation of the connectors for which they were designed. PO Resp. 45–47. Patent Owner argues that “Hughes was designed to operate by mounting to an external circuit board, and Kan was designed to operate by engaging a circuit board inside of the housing,” and their combination would render Kan unfit for its intended purpose of supporting a compact size. Id. at 46–47. We do not agree. Mr. Baxter has acknowledged that Hughes and Kan are analogous technologies directed to the common problem in the art of incorporating a circuit board with a connector so that it may offer additional functions. See Ex. 2006, ¶¶ 145– 148. We disagree that the combination of Kan and Hughes would change combination of Kan and Hughes would not be the same as the individual connectors, and we are not persuaded that the size of Kan would need to be increased such that it would be unfit for its intended purposes. As such, we do not determine Patent Owner’s argument to be persuasive.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 6,773,302 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 6,773,302
• Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2019 · IPR2018-00972 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable over Strub-based grounds; the Board grants the motion to amend, allowing substitute claims 15–28.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the “combined” limitation encompasses the multitrack embodiment of the ’307 patent. Both independent claims 1 and 12 recite that the “local audio data” is “combined with said remotely recorded audio data.” In view of Mr. DeFilippis’s testimony that the “combined” limitation allows “multiple individually recorded audio tracks to be combined into one or more multi-track audio files” (Ex. 2086 ¶ 18), we determine that claims 1 and 12 do not require the claimed “local audio data” and “remotely recorded audio data” to be derived from the same source. Furthermore, every occurrence of the term “combined” in the ’307 patent specification outside of the claims refers to the combination of audio into a multi-track file. See,e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:12–14 (“This accuracy allows multiple individually recorded audio tracks to be combined into one or more multi-track audio files electronically post-recording.”), 5:6–7 (“the multiple audio recordings are combined to create one single recording”), 16:40–44 (“[T]he local audio device of each performer . . . may be combined to create one or more multitrack audio files that are stored with master timestamps generated by the receiver/recorder's internal master timecode generator.”), 19:2–4 (“[A]ll of the individual audio files may be combined to provide one or more comprehensive audio files.”). Although we agree with Patent Owner that the ’307 patent specification describes an embodiment of a through the replacement of data, we are not persuaded that the recited “combined” limitation is limited to that embodiment, but rather also encompasses the multi-track embodiment of the ’307 patent. Id. at 4:15–18. Thus, we determine that the limitation “said local audio data is retrieved during or subsequent to said audio event and is combined with said remotely recorded audio data” does not require that the local and remote audio data originate from the same source because the ’307 patent specification contemplates a broader definition—one that includes the combination of local audio data and remotely recorded audio data to create a multi-track audio file. See Ex. 1001, 4:12–14, 5:6–7, 16:40–44, 19:2–4; Ex. 2086 ¶ 18. Based on the foregoing, we construe the “combining” limitation as broad enough to encompass combining local audio data and remotely recorded audio data, without a requirement that the local audio data and remotely recorded audio data are the same. In other words, we construe the “combining” limitation to encompass the disclosed multitrack embodiment in the ’307 patent specification, where separate audio tracks are combined to form a multitrack audio file. See Ex. 1001, 4:12–14, 5:6–7, 16:40–44, 19:2– 4.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “and in a condition to be worn.” Pet. Reply 1–2 (quoting Ex. 2110, 1628). This definition is consistent with the plain meaning of “wearable,” and we find no credible evidence on the record that requires a narrower definition. Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Tinsman, provides a definition consistent with Patent Owner’s narrow definition. Rather than defining “wearable,” Mr. Tinsman explains that the term “bodypack” is “[s]omething relatively small and lightweight.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 2109, 41:18–22). Further, when describing “wearable” as “unobtrusive, easily hidden,” Mr. Tinsman clarifies this description as “[y]ou know, reasonable to carry around.” Ex. 2109, 47:20–22. We determine that no other express claim construction analysis of any” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “of the ’307 patent, would have “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two to five years working with audio and wireless communications systems.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 24). Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. DeFilippis, similarly opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two years of experience working with audio and wireless communications systems either in industry or in graduate school.” Ex. 2086 ¶ 13. We adopt Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art as it is agreed upon and consistent with the prior art of record. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). Specifically, we adopt that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the ’307 patent, would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of experience working with audio and wireless communications systems. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 24); Ex. 2086 ¶ 13. To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Petitioner identifies a first local audio device disclosed by Strub as “a small, lightweight, wearable recording unit.” Pet. 19 (quoting Ex. 1003, 4:29–31; citing Ex. 1003, 4:29–31, 14:59–15:11, 16:66–17:24, 38:65–39:11, 66:33– 51, 67:54–68:10, 72:10–19, Figs. 1, 8A–8C, 9A, 9B; Ex. 1011 ¶ 46). Petitioner further identifies the first local audio device as including position position data or biometric data, and time data. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003, 12:39–52, 35:53–61, 37:55–62, 63:41–60; Ex. 1011 ¶ 47). Finally, Petitioner identifies Strub’s disclosure of other recording devices to which local audio data is transmitted via transmitter 309 or wired connections. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003, 12:4–39, 66:7–25, Fig. 3). In summary, Strub discloses a local audio device that records local audio and transmits the local audio to other remote devices. Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 105–108, 8:50–53, 12:4–39, 66:7–25). Therefore, Petitioner has identified two devices in Strub—a local audio device and a remote audio device that receives the transmitted audio. Ex. 1003, 12:4–39, 66:7–25, Fig. 3. Petitioner has also identified the claimed local audio as the audio that is stored by a local audio device and transmitted to a remote audio device. Id. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s argument that Strub fails to disclose “that the same local audio is stored at both the wearable local audio device as local audio data and the remote receiver/recorder as remotely recorded audio data and that the local audio data is combined with the remotely recorded audio data” is not persuasive because it is inconsistent with our claim construction discussed above. See Section II.B.1; PO Resp. 32. We do not construe the limitation “said local audio data may be retrieved after said locally recording and combined with said remotely recorded audio data” to require that the local audio data and remotely recorded audio data be the same data. Id. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that Strub discloses the disputed element because Strub discloses local audio devices transmitting recordings to other recording units and the recording units timestamping the recorded audio and synchronizing, i.e., combining, processing. Ex. 1003, 13:50–67. Patent Owner further argues that Strub does not disclose a local audio device “wearable by a creator of said locally generated audio.” PO Resp. 34–35. Patent Owner argues that Strub’s device is not “small, lightweight, unobtrusive, easily hidden, not visible, and designed to be worn on the body of a creator of audio (i.e., performer)” based on its claim construction. Id. at 34; see Section II.B.2. Mr. DeFilippis, Patent Owner’s expert, opines that Strub’s system “would require a computer that could compare content from multiple mpeg sources in real time and multiplex the results to a recording,” and the “hardware and software to do this could not be incorporated into a back pack, let alone a bodypack.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 2086 ¶ 43).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,336,307 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,336,307
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Digital Services, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2018 · IPR2017-00948 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 18–22, and 25 are unpatentable; claims 9–17, 23, and 24 are not unpatentable; substitute claims 26–28 are denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The “verify” limitation of claim 1 expressly recites a check based “at least in part on a device identity.” The specification describes such a check as occurring at steps 15 and 16, not step 13. Steps 15 and 16 check whether the device identity is on record and, in response to that check, allow a digital product to be used on a device (steps 17, 18) or start a process to authorize the device. Id. at 5:1–9, 5:13–18. Although steps 15 and 16 are not expressly described as a verification of validity, steps 15 and 16, not step 13, logically track and most closely align with the language of claim 1’s “verify” and “in response to” limitations. Thus, the specification supports Petitioner’s view that the “verify” limitation can encompass checking whether unique device information is reflected in a database as authorized for a license.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “claim 1 is limiting, with Patent Owner arguing that it is and Petitioner arguing that it is not. Id. at 12–13. Patent Owner now argues that “[t]he preambles [of claims 1 and 22] expressly state that the claimed system and method are both directed to ‘adjusting’ the license in terms of its allowed copy count, which the preambles expressly define.” PO Resp. 9. We explained in the Institution Decision, however, that even if the preamble is limiting (e.g., by virtue of it providing antecedent basis (“at least one allowed copy count”) for “set the allowed copy count”), the language “[a] system for adjusting a license for a digital product over time” constitutes a 2 The preamble of claim 25 is not similar to that of claims 1 and 22, and Patent Owner does not propose an “adjusting” limitation for the language “in response to the device identity not being on the record, set the allowed copy count to a first upper limit for a first time period after an initial authorization of the digital product,” as recited in claim 25. statement of intended purpose and does not purport to modify any particular claim language, such as “set the allowed copy count.” Dec. 13–14. Patent Owner argues that our preliminary construction would vitiate the purpose of the preamble language and that, instead, “the claim limitations must be understood in light of the ‘adjusting’ context introduced in the preamble.” PO Resp. 9. However, “the mere fact that a structural term in the preamble is part of the claim does not mean that the preamble’s statement of purpose or other description is also part of the claim.” Marrin v. Griffin, 599 F.3d 1290, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Rather, the Federal Circuit has held that “a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Thus, an intended purpose set forth in a claim preamble and the context that purpose might provide, without more, are not limiting. Moreover, as Petitioner points out, “the claimed invention could be used to adjust an allowed device limit, at least to a higher limit, thereby satisfying the intended purpose of the invention.” Reply 4.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “On the complete record, we find that DeMello’s authentication, which checks a Passport ID and machine ID against stored records to authenticate a device, discloses executable code for the processor to “verify that a license data associated with the digital product is valid based at least in part on a device identity generated by sampling physical parameters of the given device,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 22.” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “The Federal Circuit has cautioned that “references to ‘common sense’—whether to supply a motivation to combine or a missing limitation—cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially when dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art references specified.” Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That is not the case here. As explained above, both the ’960 patent and DeMello describe precise numbers of days as arbitrary and that their respective inventions contemplate other numbers. We find that it would have been reasonable for the skilled artisan to have selected six days, as recited in claim 6, in light of DeMello’s disclosure.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 8,566,960 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Bilski · Berkheimer · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,566,960

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.