• 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
• Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00485 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over the combined disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch, Rossi, and Castellani.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “have a bachelor’s degree in engineering plus five years of experience in design of mechanical beverage systems, or similar products.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in engineering plus five years of experience in design of mechanical beverage systems, or similar products, as well as experience with sensors for recognizing an identifier.” Inst. Dec. 8 (emphasis added). Neither party disputes this conclusion. PO Resp. 9; see generally Pet. Reply. As such, we adopt our preliminary definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “designing medical devices and components, and that those experiences represent work designing products similar to mechanical beverage systems, Patent Owner fails to direct the Board to evidence sufficient to establish that this experience, in the aggregate, amounts to at least “five years” or involved “experience with sensors for recognizing an identifier.” Inst. Dec. 8 (adopting Patent Owner’s own proposed definition of one of ordinary skill in the art); see Sur-reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1066, 34:16–35:9; Ex. 1067, 101:3– 12, 102:20–104:9; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 3–4, 8–10) (failing to establish adequately, if at all, how Dr. Howle’s qualifications include the requisite minimum five-year period of relevant design experience). Accordingly, we determine that Dr. Howle is not qualified to offer expert testimony from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art in this proceeding.10 See Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The Federal Circuit has explained that “[t]o offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case,” including the issue of patent “validity,” the “witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art.” Id. (Board’s emphasis). “Without that skill, the witness’[s] opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.” Id. at 1377.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Second, Patent Owner and Dr. Howell assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood upon reading the second German application that the capsule features described would be intended to be combinable with each of the described embodiments.” PO Resp. 40; Ex. 2017 ¶ 61. But Patent Owner and Dr. Howell do not explain how a barcode could be used in the devices depicted in Figures 16–18, which place the detection means 2.4.2 on the outer circumference of the flange (not its underside) and rely on toothed-rings physically interacting with either the chamber, retaining arms, or a pinion. Ex. 1047, 12:22–31, 13:8–18. Indeed, the second German priority application explains that means 2.4.2 physically interacts with retaining arms 30 (embodiments of Figures 16 and 17) or a pinon (embodiment of Figure 18), and if means 2.4.2 were not present in these embodiments the capsule would either “drop through into a waste container” or could not be inserted through the insertion shaft. Id. at 12:22– 27, 13:9–12, 13:16–35 (noting that in the embodiment disclosed in Figure 18 a pinon interacts with means 2.4.2 and only when means 2.4.2 “is formed complementary to the teeth of the means” can the capsule be inserted). At no point does the second German application identify means 2.4.2 as a barcode or suggest a barcode could be used as the detection means. The second German application also states that A person skilled in the art is also aware that for example the insertion shaft may also contain a sensor, for example a camera, clear, however, that element 27 is part of the brewing chamber, and not the capsule. Ex. 1047, 12:27–31, 13:5–8, 13:21–26, 15:36. Thus, we are not persuaded that the toothed ring is in fact on the bottom side of the flange. which senses the shape of the means 2.4.2. For example, it would be possible, in the present case, for the shape of the teeth and/or the spacing between the same to be sensed. This signal, in turn, is passed to a control means, which frees, for example, the brewing chamber if the capsule is the correct one. Ex. 1047, 14:11–19. Again, despite using a camera to determine if a capsule is “the correct one,” the second German application does not suggest using a barcode in place of the toothed-ring structure, or suggest moving the location of the detection means 2.4.2 from the outer surface to the underside of the flange. This reinforces that the inventors did not contemplate using a barcode in the embodiments depicted in Figures 16–18.” slip op. at 23

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

    “As asserted by Petitioner, Jarisch teaches how to move a code in a centrifugal brewing system to the bottom of the flange and how to configure a light-conductive material so that the detector’s light source will reach the bottom of the flange. Pet. 48–49; Pet. Reply 23–24 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 184–185; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 82–84, Fig. 5). And, although Figure 61 of Yoakim discloses a flare in its brewing chamber, bodily incorporation is not required, and we are directed to no persuasive argument or evidence that Yoakim could not be configured with a straight chamber, as generally depicted in Figure 5 of Jarisch. Pet. Reply 24 (noting that Dr. Howle’s testimony on this subject is “conclusory” and depends on “bodily incorporation”). As such, we credit the testimony of Mr. Jobin that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to place the code at the bottom of the flange and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.17 Ex. 1003 ¶ 184. Patent Owner further contends that Yoakim requires that the capsule holder be capable of receiving a set of multiple volume capsules and that 17 As discussed above, Mr. Jobin has extensive experience in the design of brewing devices. Conversely, Dr. Howle has limited experience in this field and is not one of ordinary skill in the art. Although Mr. Jobin’s testimony is more persuasive regardless of the discrepancy in experience between the two declarants, when this difference in design experience is considered, it only serves to increase the weight we give to Mr. Jobin’s testimony. there is a “snug fit” to avoid “unbalances.” PO Sur-reply 8 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 205, 479, 484, 507, 512). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner does not explain adequately how the use of Jarisch’s “straight chamber” with a capsule holder that does not engage with the side wall of the capsule would allow insertion of the multiple volume capsules or permit a “snug fit.” Id.; PO Resp. 28. Patent Owner’s assertion that Yoakim discloses the use of certain capsules that might not fit into a device with Jarisch’s non-flared structure is ineffective to undercut the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing on this point. As noted by Patent Owner, Yoakim discloses the use of certain capsules which might not fit into a device with Jarisch’s non-flared structure. But Petitioner is not seeking a bodily incorporation of Yoakim and Jarisch, and other embodiments of Yoakim do not require the type of flared capsule identified by Patent Owner. Ex. 1004, Fig. 63. Moreover, we are directed to no persuasive evidence that Jarisch’s lack of contact between the capsule side wall and the holder would render the device inoperable or even less effective. Id. (citing Ex. 2019, 36:18–37:6; Ex. 1005 ¶ 23 (Jarisch explaining that its device includes a capsule holding means and that the capsule may be successfully driven in rotation). As such, we credit the testimony of Mr. Jobin that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to design the chamber of Yoakim to allow reading of a barcode on the underside of the flange and that this design would allow for successfully receiving single-serve capsules and driving them in rotation. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 182–184; Ex. 1005 ¶ 23.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 11,230,430 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,230,430
• 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
• Tokyo Ohka Kogyo., Ltd. v. Fujifilm Electronic Materials U.S.A., Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2023 · PGR2022-00010 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable for lack of written description support under § 112(a); the Board did not reach either obviousness ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have had a Bachelor degree in materials science, engineering, chemistry or similar technical discipline, and had at least two years of experience relating to the design and development of semiconductor manufacturing processes.” Pet. 14. Petitioner further submits that, “[a]lternatively, such a person may have had additional graduate education as a substitute for professional experience, or significant work experience as a substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner states that, “[w]ithout taking a position on the correctness of this definition, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s POSA definition.” PO Resp. 11 (citing Pet. 14). 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013. Petitioner contends, and Patent Owner does not contest, that “the earliest priority date claimed by the ’329 patent” is December 6, 2013. Pet. 13; PO Resp. 6. Because the undisputed earliest claimed priority date of the ’329 patent is after March 16, 2013, we apply the AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103. record, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding.” slip op. at 5

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

    “We disagree. It is clear from the plain language of claim 1 that the claimed “cleaning composition” is a composition for cleaning that includes four named components and has a specified pH. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. The ’329 patent specification unambiguously teaches that the cleaning composition is for removing residues from semiconductor substrates. Id. at 1:23–29, 2:10–12, 2:17–33, 15:52–55. Although the ’329 patent describes a cleaning composition that comprises a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water, we see no reason to construe the term “cleaning composition” itself to require these components. Claim 1 expressly recites expressly including or precluding a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. The Federal Circuit advises that the specification “is not a suitable substitute for, nor can it be used to rewrite, the chosen claim language. ‘Specifications teach. Claims claim.’” SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875 (quoting SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)). The ’329 patent specification does teach a cleaning composition that includes a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water, but claim 1 is directed to a cleaning composition that expressly requires only a subset of those components. Patent Owner’s proposed construction would effectively rewrite the claim by adding unclaimed components, which we decline to do under the guise of claim construction. See id. (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).” slip op. at 9

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

    “that Petitioner establishes that the ’329 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Pet. 15–43; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–82. More specifically, we find that the ’329 patent does not reasonably convey to a POSA that the inventor was in possession of cleaning compositions that do not include a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. There is no dispute, on this record, that the ’329 patent specification explicitly teaches that a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water are mandatory components of the cleaning composition described therein. PO Resp. 15 (Patent Owner agreeing with Petitioner that “[t]he ’329 patent’s disclosure is unambiguously explicit regarding mandatory components of the cleaning compositions described therein.” (citing Pet. 17; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–57) (emphasis omitted, alteration in original)); see Ex. 1001, 3:47–48, 3:62–64, 10:24–26, 10:66–11:2, 12:3–4; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 56–67. Claim 1, however, does not require that the cleaning composition include a chelating agent or a metal corrosion inhibitor. Ex. 1001, 29:2–9. Therefore, establishing proper written description support for claim 1 requires more than showing that the inventor was in possession of a cleaning composition that includes a redox agent, a chelating agent, a metal corrosion inhibitor, an organic solvent, and water; the ’329 patent must also show that the inventor was in possession of a cleaning composition that includes only a redox agent (hydroxylamine), an organic solvent (an alkylene glycol), water, and an alkanolamine. Id.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,927,329 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,927,329
• Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 22, 2023 · PGR2022-00009 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–12, and 14–19 are unpatentable based on lack of written description, anticipation by Bruning, or obviousness over Bruning and Kabel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “lighting device.” Accordingly, we determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of relevant experience in the field of design and/or development of LEDs and circuits,” as Petitioner proposes and that “the field of design and/or development” would be “in the context of lighting devices” as Patent Owner proposes, in which “[a]n increase in experience could compensate for less education.” Id.; Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 46).” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “theoretically fall under the “or greater” portion of the amended claim limitation “forward voltage of 6V or greater,” Applicant distinguished Colby on the basis that the 120V AC voltage from a wall outlet is not “the minimum voltage difference required between the anode and cathode of the LEDs in the claimed circuit to allow current to flow through the LEDs.” See Ex. 1023, 9 (emphasis added). Applicant’s argument specifically identifies the claim language at issue––“forward voltage of 6V or greater”––and specifically states that it is not disclosed because Colby does not disclose the minimum voltage and instead, discloses something else, something larger–– 120V AC voltage. Accordingly, we conclude that Applicant disclaimed any voltage that is more than “the minimum voltage difference required between the anode and cathode of the LEDs in the claimed circuit to allow current to flow through the LEDs” from the scope of “forward voltage.”” slip op. at 25

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

    “4. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) With respect to the written description requirement, we are persuaded” slip op. at 32

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable

    “Basis § Unpatentable Unpatentable Lack of written description, 3, 10, 17 112(a) 3, 10, 17 Lack of enablement 3, 10, 17 112(b) Indefiniteness 3, 10, 17 Lack of written description, 4, 11, 18 112(a) 4, 11, 18 Lack of enablement 4, 11, 18 112(b) indefiniteness 4, 11, 18” slip op. at 77

  Patent outcomesUS 10,932,341 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,932,341
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Affinity Labs Of Texas, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 28, 2016 · IPR2014-01184 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–14 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over the prior art combinations addressed in the decision.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the term “streaming” is often used in the context of the immediate processing and playback of audio information. -01181 Dec. on Inst. 7. The ordinary meaning of the term, however, does not require the immediate playback of streaming audio information, and the portions of the ’641 patent identified by Patent Owner do not demonstrate with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision that a narrower claim definition should apply. For example, although the discussion in the ’641 patent of using high-speed communications for streaming an Internet radio station supports Patent Owner’s argument that “streaming audio” may be played immediately as it arrives, Ex. 1001, 7:3–7, the ’641 patent also discloses “downloading” “streaming audio” and “streaming Internet Broadcasts.” Id. at 3:67–4:1, 8:31–35, 17:1–2, 18:1–5. Thus, the disclosures of the ’641 patent are consistent with the dictionary definition of the term “streaming,” which contemplates the transfer of “streaming audio” as a constant stream of data for either immediate or delayed playback. Accordingly, we construe the term “streaming audio signal” as “an audio signal that is transferred in a continuous stream.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “3. remaining claim terms Patent Owner also proposes constructions for the terms wireless telephone device, a signal representing at least a portion of a song, while, and portable electronic device. PO Resp. 5–6, 8–10, 11–12. Upon review of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments, we determine that construction of these additional claim terms is not required for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the addition of well-known rechargeable battery technology (as disclosed in Herrod) in the device of Abecassis would have been obvious, at a minimum, to eliminate the need to periodically replace the batteries in the Abecassis device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Abecassis and Herrod are in different fields of endeavor, as both references relate to the communication of data using a cellular phone.8” slip op. at 17

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

    “Ipsis verbis disclosure is not necessary, however, to satisfy the written description requirement of section 112. Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Thus, we must also determine whether, despite the lack of express disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Patent Owner was in possession of the invention set forth in claim 8. Id. In conducting this analysis, we are cognizant that “a description which renders obvious a claimed invention is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement of that invention.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Dr. Wolf recites the same disclosures as Patent Owner and concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ’812 application demonstrates possession of an invention wherein a radio dial transmitted to a recipient device could be used to cause the transmission of selected information to the recipient device. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 287, 290. Dr. Wolf does not address, however, the specific configuration set forth in claim 8 of the ’641 patent. In particular, Dr. Wolf does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the recited disclosures that the patentee was possession of a method of streaming a song from a portable electronic device to a recipient device in response to the selection of a selectable menu item “presented on a recipient device display.” In contrast, Dr. Quackenbush analyzes the disclosures of the ’641 patent in detail and concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art, upon review of the priority disclosures as a whole, would not understand the patentee to be in possession of the invention set forth in claim 8. Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 189–207. Specifically, Dr. Quackenbush concludes that the disclosures of the ’812 application and the ’641 Specification focus on the transmission of data from a storage device and digital engine to an electronic device, and not from a portable electronic device to a recipient device, in response to a selection of a selectable menu item presented on a recipient device display. Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 193–203. Upon careful review of both Dr. Wolf’s and Dr. Quackenbush’s” slip op. at 52

  Patent outcomesUS 8,532,641 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,532,641

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.