• 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
• Apple Inc. v. Aire Technology LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00188 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable under the stated obviousness grounds; the motion to amend with substitute claims 23–26 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not accord the testimony of Dr. Phinney little or no weight simply because it matches what Petitioner states in the Petition. The Xerox case cited by Patent Owner does not require or indicate otherwise. See Xerox at 1517 (noting that the deficiencies with expert testimony are that they are conclusory and lacking supporting evidence or technical reasoning.). Dr. Phinney’s testimony apprises us of why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the assertions made in the Petition, and his testimony is supported by evidence. We find that the declarations of Dr. Phinney are based on specific factual disclosures in the evidence of record. Therefore, we credit Dr. Phinney’s declaration testimony for the matters asserted based on the evidence and technical reasoning provided therein. Having considered the arguments and evidence of record, we” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “knowledgeable and familiar with the smart card and Radio Frequency Identifier (RFID) arts. Pet. 13. Petitioner states that such a “person would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the electrical engineering field. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill. See generally, PO Resp. 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’249 patent has an effective filing date prior to the effective date of the applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the pre-AIA version of § 103. 2 U.S. Patent No. 6,824,064 (Ex. 1005) 3 Japanese Paten Application No. 2000-163539A (Ex. 1006) 4 RFID Handbook: Radio-Frequency Identification Fundamentals and Applications, Klause Finkenzeller, 1999 (Ex. 1007) 5 Smart Card Handbook: Third Edition, Wolfgang Rankl, 2003 (Ex. 1008) references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Further, although Patent Owner is correct in stating that Guthery discloses an embodiment of a request-to-send packet that includes size information, we do not agree that Guthery requires this information to be included in the request-to-send packet. Rather, we agree with Petitioner, that Guthery’s description of a request-to-send packet as shown in Figure 8, which does not include information about the size of the message, indicates that the size information is not required by the request-to-send packet in at least some embodiments of Guthery. Ex. 1005, 8:65–9:12, Fig. 8; see id. at 8:25–29 (The “present invention is not limited to the packet types discussed and in fact assumes that new types can and will be defined in the future as needed.”); 7:43–50 (“In one particular embodiment,” packets have a fixed number of bytes, but “in other embodiments, packet types may have different sizes.”). We agree with Petitioner, that Guthery discloses multiple embodiments, and the combination made by Petitioner relies on the embodiments shown in Figures 14 and 15, where the requested application only needs two buffers and therefore would know, without receiving information from the request-to-send packet, to ask for two buffers. Ex. 1005, 12:19–59. We find that a person of ordinary skill, in combining the teachings in Guthery with Nozawa to identify and initialize an application most likely to be selected by the smart card reader, would rely on (a) information about the size of a message as shown in Figure 8, (b) Guthery’s teaching of an application programmed to determine its own memory requirements (Ex. 1005, 9:25–31), and (c) Guthery’s teaching of an application that only needs two buffers as shown in Figures 15A-15D, to preemptively transmit a permission-to-send packet from the application to the reader without waiting to receive the request-to-send packet from the reader, to yield the benefit of improving efficiency and reducing latency as taught by Nozawa. See Phinney Decl. ¶¶ 55 (testifying that Guthery’s system would preemptively prepare the buffers and transmit the permissionto-send packet without waiting to receive the request-to-send packet).” slip op. at 17

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “In light of the full record before us, including Patent Owner’s arguments at the Oral Hearing, we now consider whether the proposed amended claim properly encompasses a device other than the reader performing the claimed selection. We agree with Petitioner’s contention, that the “claim doesn’t tell us . . . which element performs the selection,” and that “[t]his difference . . . divorces the claim from the functionality described in the specification.” Opp. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002, 290 (Spec. ¶ 21)). Dr. Phinney’s testimony supports this contention. Ex. 1026 ¶ 12. We do not give weight to the arguments by Patent Owner’s attorney at the Oral Hearing, because attorney argument cannot take the place of objective evidence. Gemtron Corp., 572 F.3d at 1380. This is especially true here, where the specification discloses that the reader makes the selection, but does not disclose that any other device makes or would be capable of performing the selection. Patent Owner has not shown, nor do we find, support in the disclosure of the ’706 patent for a device other than the reader performing or capable of performing a selection. Thus, based on Patent Owner’s position that the proposed claim amendment would encompass non-reader devices making the selection, the proposed amendment adds new matter and is impermissible. See Gentry Gallery Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 supporting disclosure, and therefore . . . a narrow disclosure will limit claim breadth.”). Accordingly, Patent Owner has not shown, nor do we find, support for “wherein after selection of one of the plurality of applications, subsequent communication between the reading device and the selected application takes place without requiring any further steps” as recited in independent proposed substitute claims 23, 25, and 26. Due to the lack of support in the original disclosure of the ’706 patent for this limitation, proposed substitute claims 23, 25, and 26, and claim 24 by virtue of its dependency from claim 23, seek to introduce new subject matter.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,581,706 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,581,706
• Apple Inc. v. Aire Technology LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2023 · IPR2022-01137 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; the motion to amend with proposed substitute claims 23–26 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “knowledgeable and familiar with the smart card and Radio Frequency Identifier (RFID) arts. Pet. 13. Petitioner states that such a “person would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the electrical engineering field. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill. See generally, PO Resp. 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’249 patent has an effective filing date prior to the effective date of the applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the pre-AIA version of § 103. 2 U.S. Patent No. 6,824,064 (Ex. 1005) 3 Japanese Paten Application No. 2000-163539A (Ex. 1006) 4 RFID Handbook: Radio-Frequency Identification Fundamentals and Applications, Klause Finkenzeller, 1999 (Ex. 1007) 5 Smart Card Handbook: Third Edition, Wolfgang Rankl, 2003 (Ex. 1008) references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We construe only those claim terms that require analysis to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, 1994). Petitioner submits that the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction. Pet. 13–14. Although we may discuss the scope of the claim language during our analysis, we agree that no specific construction is necessary for us to reach our decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We do not accord the testimony of Dr. Phinney little or no weight simply because it matches what Petitioner states in the Petition. The Xerox case cited by Patent Owner does not require or indicate otherwise. See Xerox at 1517 (noting that the deficiencies with expert testimony are that they are conclusory and lacking supporting evidence or technical reasoning.). Dr. Phinney’s testimony apprises us of why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the assertions made in the Petition, and his testimony is supported by evidence. We find that the declarations of Dr. Phinney are based on specific factual disclosures in the evidence of record. Therefore, we credit Dr. Phinney’s declaration testimony for the matters asserted based on the evidence and technical reasoning provided therein.” slip op. at 23

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

    “discloses an embodiment of a request-to-send packet that includes size information, we do not agree that Guthery requires this information to be included in the request-to-send packet. Rather, we agree with Petitioner, that Guthery’s description of a request-to-send packet as shown in Figure 8, which does not include information about the size of the message, indicates that the size information is not required by the request-to-send packet in at least some embodiments of Guthery. Ex. 1005, 8:65–9:12, Fig. 8; see id. at 8:25–29 (The “present invention is not limited to the packet types discussed and in fact assumes that new types can and will be defined in the future as needed.”); 7:43–50 (“In one particular embodiment,” packets have a fixed number of bytes, but “in other embodiments, packet types may have different sizes.”). We agree with Petitioner, that Guthery discloses multiple embodiments, and the combination made by Petitioner relies on the embodiments shown in Figures 14 and 15, where the requested application only needs two buffers and therefore would know, without receiving information from the request-to-send packet, to ask for two buffers. Ex. 1005, 12:19–59. We find that a person of ordinary skill, in combining the teachings in Guthery with Nozawa to identify and initialize an application most likely to be selected by the smart card reader, would rely on (a) information about the size of a message as shown in Figure 8, (b) Guthery’s teaching of an application programmed to determine its own memory requirements (Ex. 1005, 9:25–31), and (c) Guthery’s teaching of an application that only needs two buffers as shown in Figures 15A-15D, to preemptively transmit a permission-to-send packet from the application to the reader without waiting to receive the request-to-send packet from the reader, to yield the benefit of improving efficiency and reducing latency as taught by Nozawa. See Phinney Decl. ¶¶ 55 (testifying that Guthery’s system would preemptively prepare the buffers and transmit the permissionto-send packet without waiting to receive the request-to-send packet).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,581,706 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,581,706
• 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
• Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2022 · IPR2020-00208 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7, and 12–18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Duan under § 102(a)(1).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2-4 years of academic or industry experience in lighting design, including knowledge of LEDs and related technology for driving LEDs. A person of ordinary skill in the art with a higher level of education may have fewer years of academic or industry experience, or vice versa. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 5

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “embodiments that operate with a low frequency driving signal in a double-ended configuration, Patent Owner did not recite “low frequency” or “double-ended” in its claims and instead chose the broader term “first driving mode.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). The fact that a limitation in the specification may define over the prior art does not justify importing that limitation into the claims unless a term is expressly defined such that the patentee becomes his own lexicographer or there is an express disavowal of claim scope. See GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1308–09 (Fed. Cir. 2014). There is no evidence of an express disavowal here. As to lexicography, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification defines the phrase “first driving mode.” Patent Owner relies on the mere fact that the specification describes an embodiment with a first driving mode that has a low frequency driving signal and is in a “double-ended” configuration, but this is not sufficient to define the term. The specification does not require that a low frequency driving signal must necessarily be used. In fact the specification, although not entirely clear, suggests that the driving signal may be from a high frequency ballast. Ex. 1001, 51:8–14. Thus, the fact that the patent here discloses a low frequency driving signal does not mean that all the claims are directed to such a driving signal. See E-Pass Tech., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Indeed, dependent claim 15 recites “the first driving mode is performed when the external driving signal is a relatively low frequency or voltage signal,” while the independent claims were directed to a more general driving signal. The doctrine of claim differentiation suggests that the independent claims here should not include explicit limitations of a dependent claim. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 7

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

    “We determine that Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the Chinese priority patent applications it relies on—the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application—provide written description support for the limitation of “a mode determination circuit, configured to generate a first determined result signal based on the external driving signal” and “a mode switching circuit, coupled to the filter circuit and the driving circuit, configured to determine whether to perform a first driving mode or a second driving mode based on the first determined result signal,” recited in claim 1. PO Resp. 31–34, 60–67. Specifically, Patent Owner relies on structures in the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application that are not sufficiently similar to structures in the ’826 patent i.e., DR Circuit 140, excluding diodes D5 and D6, as shown in Figs. 24i-j and 29b. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 2001, 23–24, 29, and 33, Fig. 24i–j and 29b).” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “For the reasons above, Patent Owner has not established that claim 1 of the ’826 patent is entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application (i.e., June 10, 2015) or the ’586 Application (i.e., March 26, 2015). Because the remaining asserted claims are dependent claims, Patent Owner has also not established that claims 7 and 12–18 of the ’826 patent are entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application or the ’586 Application. The application that led to the ’826 patent was filed on March 25, 2016. The ’826 patent claims it is a continuation-in-part of application No. 15/055,630 (“the ’630 Application”), filed on February 28, 2016. So, even if the challenged claims were entitled to the earlier February 28, 2016 filing date, Duan issued on July 1, 2015, and is, thus, prior art to the challenged claims of the ’826 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,807,826 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,807,826
• 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
• Samsung Electroncis Co. Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2022 · IPR2020-01183 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 17–18, and 21–24 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 17–18 are obvious over Jammy, and claims 21–24 are anticipated by Grupp ’483 and Jammy.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “mental steps that an ordinarily skilled artisan theoretically might have taken after reviewing the minimal disclosure in the ’423 patent. The ’423 patent does not discuss any properties of metal oxides (other than the lower barrier of the metal oxide TiO2) or design considerations concerning the selection of particular oxides to use in the claimed structure, particularly in the context of MIGS separation. Dr. Kuhn cites very little, if any, evidence to support her testimony regarding the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Thus, we do not credit this analysis as showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found that the inventors of the pre-2011 priority applications possessed the recited genus. See Ariad, 593 F.3d at 1352 (a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the written description requirement); PowerOasis Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed.”) (quoting In re Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002),” slip op. at 22

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “As discussed above, Petitioner has demonstrated Grupp ’483 is prior art to challenged claims 1–3, 17–18, and 21–24 of the ’261 patent. It is undisputed that the priority applications disclose at least some group IV semiconductors. Thus, claims reciting the metal oxide interface layer and Group IV semiconductor are anticipated under In re Slayter, 276 F.2d 408, 411 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that a generic claim cannot be allowed to an applicant if the prior art discloses a species falling within the claimed genus; in other words, whatever would infringe if subsequent will anticipate if prior.”) and In re Gosteli, 872 F. 2d 1008, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The additional limitations of the challenged dependent claims are also disclosed in Grupp ’483. See Pet. 25–26. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 17–18, and 21–24 are anticipated by Grupp ’483.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “On this record Patent Owner has not provided sufficient evidence of a nexus between the long felt and the specific limitations recited in claims 1–3 and 17–18, e.g., the structure recited in independent claim 1, in which a metal oxide interface layer interposed between a metal and a group IV semiconductor comprising the source or drain of a transistor has a thickness between 0.1 nm and 5 nm.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 9,209,261 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,209,261
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01205 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 8–12, and 14–16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grupp ’483; the priority applications do not support or enable the claims’ full scope.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateEntitled to earlier dateMixed

    “To support a claim to a genus, a specification must disclose “either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Here, the recited genus is an interface layer comprising a metal oxide, where the interface layer is configured to provide a specific contact resistivity between a contact metal and a semiconductor of than 1 Ω- μm2. Ex. 1001, 18:37–43. It is undisputed that the only species the pre- 2011 priority applications disclose is TiO2, as set forth in the following passage: Two other properties of the dielectric deserve mention. First is the property of the height of the barrier compared to the semiconductor conduction band (for electrons). In making the barrier thinner than a silicide barrier, the tradeoff may be a higher tunnel barrier (e.g., 2 eV for nitride, compared with about half the gap of 0.6 eV for silicide). Spacer layers may be used with lower barriers (e.g., TiO2 has a barrier of less than 1 eV). Nevertheless, even with the higher barrier to electrons, the present inventors have determined that the resistance can still be one hundred times lower than a contact to silicon with a silicide barrier. Id. at 17:59–18:2 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 18

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “evidence shows, that the disclosure does not enable specific contact resistance down to zero. Ex. 1016, Schubert Decl. ¶¶ 87–90. Instead, Patent Owner argues that one of skill in the art would have understood there to be an “inherent lower limit” and that the claims are enabled because one of skill in the art could achieve that lower limit through experimentation based on the disclosure of patent. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument, for two main reasons. First, we do not agree that the cases cited by Patent Owner establish that the enablement requirement is satisfied if one of skill in the art could experiment in accordance with the disclosure to find a practical end of an open ended range recited in a claim. Patent Owner principally relies on Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, but the Federal Circuit in that case affirmed the jury verdict of enablement because “the upper limit of the Young’s modulus of the structural member would lie somewhere between the Young’s modulus of the wood fiber and that of the polymer used in the composition.” 474 F.3d at 1377. In other words, there were two known quantities that provided a fixed range. That is not the case here, where Patent Owner does not point to any such predefined limits. Patent Owner also cites a district court case, PerkinElmer Health Scis., Inc. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 962 F. Supp. 2d 304, 310 (D. Mass. 2013). That case is not directly on point, because it was considering claim construction and not enablement, but that court also found an existing practical upper limit to the” slip op. at 36

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

    “Neither party asks for a construction of the subject claim language, and we determine that the plain meaning of “a specific contact resistivity . . . of less than 1Ω μm2” would encompass all specific contact resistances below 1 Ω-μm2 and down to zero.” slip op. at 35

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableReference is prior artUnpatentable

    “reference for purposes of anticipation under section 102 [] differs from the enablement standard under section 112.” Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Enablement under section 112, which is required for priority under section 120, requires enablement of the full breadth of a claim. Wyeth and Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, 720 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2013); MagSil, 687 F.3d at 1384; 35 U.S.C. § 120. Enablement for anticipation does not; rather it requires only enablement of an embodiment or embodiments that fall within the scope of the claim. Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“a CIP's claim for a genus might not be enabled by a parent's disclosure, but that parent may enable a species that anticipates the CIP's claim for a genus . . . . the Court of Custom and Patent Appeals [] made clear the differences between the requirements for claim-anticipating disclosures and for claim-supporting disclosures”) (citing In re Lukach, 442, F.2d 967, 969–970 (CCPA 1971)). Here, the enablement challenge for priority is for a lack of enablement of the full breadth of the recited range, and in particular, a lack of enablement of the lower part of the recited range (that which is at or near zero). No party has argued that the upper part of the recited range (just below 1 Ω-μm2) is not enabled by either the priority applications or Grupp ’483. See, e.g., Pet. 20; PO Resp. 1–2; Pet. Reply 27–28; PO Sur-reply 17– 18. And enablement by a prior art patent is presumed. In re Antor Media Pharm., Inc., 545 F.3d 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, the record does not reflect an inconsistency in holding the priority applications as not enabling the breadth of the recited range while treating Grupp ’483 as enabling the upper part of the range for anticipation. As set forth below, we find that Petitioner has proven that Grupp ’483 anticipates every challenged claim.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 9,461,167 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,461,167
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2022 · IPR2020-01204 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 13–16, and 77–80 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grupp ’483; the challenged claims are not entitled to the earlier priority date.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that “[a]ny of the following combinations of education and experience would have qualified someone as an ordinarily skilled artisan in the field of the ’336 Patent”: (a) “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science”; (b) “chemical engineering, with two years of practical experience with semiconductor research and design”; (c) “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or chemical engineering, with four years of practical experience with semiconductor research and design”; or (d) “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or chemical engineering, with six to eight years of practical experience with semiconductor research and design.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 70–71). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education could compensate for less practical experience, and vice versa” and that “[t]he same level of ordinary skill would have been applicable in August 2002, February 2011, or November 2012.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in the art. Because Petitioner’s proposal is consistent the disclosures of the ’336 patent and the cited art, we apply it in this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeOther

    “We dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot because, unlike other cases in this family, this case does not include any claims that recite an “oxide of titanium.”” slip op. at 53

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

    “III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Neither party seeks any claim constructions, and we see no terms that need to be expressly construed to resolve the issues before us, so we do not engage in any formal claim construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner that the pre-2011 priority applications do not describe the recited genus. To support a claim to a genus, a specification must disclose “either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, the recited genus is an interface layer comprising a metal oxide, where the interface layer is configured to provide a specific contact resistivity between a contact metal and a semiconductor of less than or equal to approximately” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 8,766,336 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,766,336

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.