- Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00557 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 10–12, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 6, and 8 were not shown unpatentable; the contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would be a person with a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent training or job experience, with two years of experience in computer networking technology, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or other equivalent degree.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47). Patent Owner indicates that it does not challenge the qualifications proposed by Petitioner for a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, 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), and, therefore, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“associated sessions” With respect to the limitation “associated sessions,” Patent Owner asserted that the ’669 Patent defines those sessions as those that “should not be managed independent from each another,” and continues to assert the same in its Response. PO Resp. 14–15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:37–38). Based on the recitations of the Specification, we construe “associated sessions” as “sessions that should not be managed independent from each other,” as proffered by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 7:37–38. slip op. at 8
- Prior constructionTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas rejected Petitioner’s proposed construction in the District Court Case, and following briefing and oral argument in that proceeding, the District Court concluded that “composition session” means “a signaling session that is separate from the associated sessions and that is for facilitating management of the associated sessions.” PO Resp. 16. Having reviewed the District Court’s determination, we do not discern a significant difference in scope between it and Petitioner’s formulation, and we, thus, adopt its construction of “composition session” in the analysis below.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As such, we continue to determine that Petitioner has sufficiently established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a rationale to combine the teachings of Foti with RFC 3261, RFC 4566, RFC 2326, Wright, and Lloyd, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving that combination, as we determined in the Institution Decision. See Inst. Dec. 17–18. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have consulted and utilized disclosures in the RFC references to understand and implement the protocols disclosed by Foti. We are further persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that such skilled artisans would have had a rationale to combine the teachings of Wright and Lloyd with those of Foti for the reasons provided. Petitioner has asserted that each of the supporting references would have been used by persons of ordinary skill in the art to modify or enhance the system described in Foti for the benefits described for the proposed changes. Absent reasons the references should not be combined, we determine that the motivation proffered by the Petition is sufficient to support the combination, under the preponderance of the evidence standard.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,667,669 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,667,669 - Walmart Inc. / Current Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Power Concepts, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 15, 2023 · IPR2022-00569 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable; the contingent motion to amend proposing claims 15–28 and the motion to exclude are denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“of the claimed “light emitting diode.” Looking at the intrinsic evidence, neither the claim nor the specification defines the light emitting diode as including an integrated lens. With respect to Dr. Bretschneider’s analysis of Dowling’s lens described in paragraph 24, we disagree with Dr. Bretschneider’s conclusion that Dowling’s lens does not teach a lens as claimed. Ex. 2076 ¶ 431 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 24).” slip op. at 31
- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“electriciaan” and not a “licensed electrician.” Opp. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002, 25 ¶¶ 6–7, 32 ¶¶ 46, 48). Instead, Petitioner argues that “the disclosure lacks the term ‘licensed electrician,’ lacks a definition of ‘licensed electrician,’ and lacks an explanation of what type of electrical connection would be allowed without the assistance of a licensed electrician.” Id.; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 76–79) (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, Petitioner argues that the original application does not support proposed substitute claims 23 and 28. See id. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. The ’295 and ’447 applications describe a “skilled” electrician, not a “licensed” electrician. Patent Owner does not show that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret these to be equivalent. Accordingly, we find that proposed substitute claims 23 and 28 adds new matter. Proposed substitute claim 24 depends from claim 23 and thus includes the same new matter.” slip op. at 63
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)Indefinite
“electrician. See id. (citing Ex. 1002, 25 ¶¶ 6–7). Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Ducharme, attests that a “licensed electrician is an individual who has obtained a license from a regulatory authority such as a state or local government.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 85. The licensing standards set forth “differ depending upon a given industry” and “change over time.” Id. Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that “one skilled in the art is left to speculate as to what type of electrical wirings require a licensed electrician and which do not — there is no reasonable certainty of the scope of the claimed invention, as the standard requires.” Opp. 5–6 (citing Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014)). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that proposed substitute claims 23 and 28 are indefinite. Specifically, we agree that there is no reasonable certainty as to the definition of a licensed electrician, nor how to adapt wiring for series connection without the required assistance of a licensed electrician. Accordingly, we find that proposed substitute claims 23 and 28 are indefinite. Proposed substitute claim 24 depends from claim 23 and thus includes the same indefinite limitation.” slip op. at 64
Patent outcomesUS 10,429,041 unpatentable§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,429,041 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Ward Participations B.V.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 21, 2023 · PGR2022-00007 · APJ Thu A Dang · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable: they lack written-description support, and the asserted combinations of Ellison and Muir, with Al-Salqan or Searle for dependent claims, render them obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateUnpatentable
“specific, and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The test for sufficiency of support is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon “reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter.” Vas–Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “One shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations,” wherein, “[w]hile the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in the art, all the limitations must appear in the specification.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). That is, “it is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession” and “a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [written description] requirement.” Ariad Pharm., 598 F.3d at 1351 (“[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.”).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“vi. Proposed Combination of Ellison and Muir Petitioner contends that Ellison discloses “an isolated execution architecture that improves security in a computer system or platform by implementing several levels of hierarchy and normal and isolation execution modes for the operating system and processor.” Pet. 46–47 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:12–15, 2:40–61, Fig. 1). Although Petitioner acknowledges that Ellison “does not reveal details of [] a system or transaction between multiple parties,” Petitioner relies on Muir for such teaching. Id. at 47. According to Petitioner, a POSITA looking to implement Ellison’s isolated execution architecture in a computer with multiple devices “would have looked to Muir’s teachings to implement a secure electronic transaction between two parties,” because “both Ellison and Muir are related to providing improved security for transactions involving keys using cryptographic techniques.” Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:38–51; Ex. 1008, 7, 8, 11; Ex. 1003 ¶ 66). We agree with Petitioner’s motivation to combine the teachings of Ellison and Muir, as supported by Dr. Black’s testimony (Pet. 46–51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–71), and find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that “a POSITA would not have looked to Muir to cure the deficiencies of Ellison.” PO Resp. 39. Although Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner fails to show with particularity the why and how required for its obviousness combinations” (PO Resp. 68), we agree with Petitioner’s contention that, in the combination of Ellison and Muir, “each device involved in a transaction would have been connected through a computer network such as Mui’s included Ellison’s isolated execution architecture and one or more parts of Muir’s system.” Pet. 48. We credit the testimony of Dr. Black as sufficient support for Petitioner’s contention, when he explains, “a POSITA would have viewed extension of Ellison’s system to include the multi-party transactions described by Muir to have been a natural and obvious extension,” wherein a “a POSITA would have been motivated to enable such multi-party transaction [] in Ellison’s system to increase the functionality and usefulness of Ellison’s system.” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. Thus, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner “has not established its prima facie case.” PO Resp. 68.” slip op. at 44
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention which is directed to Ellison alone, and not to the combination of Ellison and Muir proposed by Petitioner. See PO Resp. 47. We agree with Petitioner’s contention that Ellison’s private key 204 “can be used ‘to encrypt a digest of a message producing a signature” (see Ex. 1006, 60–65 (“In the digital signature generation process, the protected private key 204 is used as an encryption key to encrypt a digest of a message producing a signature”)), wherein “Muir clearly discloses using a digital signature for transactions between two parties.” Pet. Reply 25 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:59–65; Ex. 1008, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 18; Ex. 1032 ¶ 29). Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, we agree with Petitioner’s position regarding the combination of Ellison and Muir for teaching that “private key 204” is “for the protection of digital transactions involving two parties.” PO Resp. 47. Based on the complete record presented, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Ellison and Muir, wherein the combination of Ellison and Muir teaches “providing a private key in a memory of said electronic device,” the device,” the private key being “inaccessible to a user of said electronic device,” and “encrypted when the private key is stored in said memory,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,992,480 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,992,480 - PTAB · Apr 26, 2022 · PGR2022-00007 · APJ Thu A Dang · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–19 based on likely lack of written description and obviousness over Ellison and Muir, with Al-Salqan or Searle added for certain claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Section 324(a) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides that a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) as well as the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, for the reasons below, we determine that the information in the Petition satisfies the threshold provided in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) and we institute this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). In other words, where the written description fails to disclose an element explicitly, “the applicant must show that any absent text is necessarily comprehended in the description provided and would have been so understood at the time the patent application was filed.” Id. at 1354–55 (emphases added). At this stage of the proceeding, we do not find persuasive Patent Owner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that authentication software has a “private key” that forms an “integral part of the authentication software component and/or is embedded therein” (Prelim. Resp. 13 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:39–40)), in view of the cited section in the Detailed Description describing the authentication software as comprising the unique serial number, the unique software ID and/or a private encryption key, but only the unique serial number or the unique software ID is embedded therein. See Ex. 1001, 5:39–49. That is, we are unpersuaded at this stage of the proceeding that the person of ordinary skill in the art will directly and unambiguously deduce from the ’773 application as filed that the “private encryption key” is embedded in the authentication software, as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 13. Instead, we find persuasive Petitioner’s contention that the ’480 patent (i.e., the ’773 application) merely teaches storing the digital signing algorithm in a secure part of the BIOS 44 but is silent as to storage of the private key. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:27–34, 13:31–44; Ex. 1003). As Petitioner contends, the” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“The Specification of the ’480 patent discloses secure area 62 only accessible to BIOS 44, comprising applications and storage locations not reported to operating system 48 (Ex. 1001, 8:62–9:1), wherein, as shown in Figure 3, secure area 62 comprises secure storage location 60, recovery application 56, and authentication software 54. Id. at 9:7–11. That is, the Specification shows “secure memory inaccessible to said operating system” as a location that holds software not accessible to operating system 48. Id. Nothing in the Specification, or the general knowledge in the art, limits “secure memory inaccessible to said operating system” to Ellison’s “isolated storage area 70,” or precludes Ellison’s “secure platform 200,” as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 35–36. In fact, nothing in the Specification or the general knowledge in the art limits the “storage” to any amount of time in the secure memory. We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s apparent position that software that is loaded into a secure location of execution is not software that is “stored” in a “secure memory” location. Prelim. Resp. 35–36. In view of the Specification and the general knowledge in the art, we determine that the term “stored in said secure memory inaccessible to said operating system” encompasses being held in any secure location that is determination here is preliminary, and the parties are invited to address this claim construction issue at trial, if so desired.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“ii. “providing a private key in a memory of said electronic device, said memory being a secure part of a Basic In Out System or any other secure location in said electronic device, which private key is inaccessible to a user of said electronic device, wherein the private key is encrypted when the private key is stored in said memory” (claim 1) Petitioner contends that Ellison’s “isolated execution regions ‘is accessible only to elements of the operating system and processor operating in isolated execution mode,’” and that “isolated mode applets 461 to 46K and their data are tamper-resistant and monitor-resistant from all software attacks from other applets and OS 12.” Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1006, 4:1–22). According to Petitioner, “[a] user is not an element of the operating system and processor operating in isolated execution mode, and therefore 6 The issue of whether the preamble is limiting need not be resolved at this stage of the proceeding because, regardless of whether the preamble is limiting, Petitioner shows sufficiently for purposes of institution, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that the combination of Ellison and Muir teaches a method for performing an electronic transaction between first and second transaction parties, as recited in the preamble. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (noting that we need only construe “only those terms that . . . are in controversy”). Ex. 1003 ¶ 92). Petitioner then contends that Ellison discloses “a secure platform 200 that ‘includes the OS nub 16, the processor nub 18, a key generator 240, . . . , all operating within the isolated execution environment.’” Pet. 58 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:25–32; Ex. 1003 ¶ 95). Petitioner also contends that “the private key 204 can be stored in the cryptographic key storage 155 and in a multiple key storage of the non-volatile flash memory 160,” and “only the OS nub 16 can retrieve the private key.” Id. at 59–60. According to Petitioner, because “the OS nub 16 is within the secure platform and isolated environment,” it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) that “the cryptographic key storage 155 and the non-volatile flash memory 160 are secure storage locations so that the private key 204 can be accessed securely by OS nub 16.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 96). Thus, Petitioner contends that “Ellison explicitly teaches that the OS nub 16 and private key 204 shown in platform 200 all operate within the isolated execution environment,” which “would indicate to a POSITA that private key 204 is stored in a secure memory and is inaccessible to a user of said electronic device.” Id. Nevertheless, Petitioner contends that Muir “explicitly teaches a private key 167 stored in a restricted memory space 170 which is inaccessible to the operating system.” Id. at 60 (citing Ex. 1008, 7–9, 3). Petitioner then contends that Ellison’s OS nub 16 “retrieves the encrypted private key 204 and decrypts it for use in the isolated environment.” Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:33–65, 11:1–12:26). Thus, Petitioner contends that “Ellison and Muir render obvious the private key 204 being encrypted when stored in a secure memory (e.g.,” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,992,480 - Intel Corporation v. Acqis LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 18, 2022 · IPR2021-01114 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 17–19, 26–31, 35, and 36 because substantially the same arguments were previously presented and Petitioner did not show material Office error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“For the foregoing reasons, the ’882 application identified the ’886 provisional with particularity and would have directly led an ordinarily skilled artisan to the document intended to be incorporated. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show that the Examiner erred in determining that the ’882 application (Chu ’330) incorporated the ’886 provisional by reference.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelOther
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial - Intel Corporation v. Acqis LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 5, 2022 · IPR2021-01105 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–3, 7–13, and 18–20 under § 325(d), finding the arguments previously presented and no material Examiner error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Under § 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented 8 to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. If the petitioner fails to show that the Office erred, the Director may exercise his or her discretion not to institute inter partes review. Id.; see also Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8 at 24 (exercising discretion where “Petitioner has not pointed to error by the Examiner”). 1. Part I – whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateDecided for patent owner
“The Examiner in each of these cases did not object to the amendments as new matter or issue a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 for lack of written description support for the claims. NTP, 654 F.3d at 1277. Instead, the Examiner entered the amendments and subsequently allowed the ’912 application with the subject matter added from Chu ’886. Ex. 1009, 419 (Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due). The incorporation by reference statement in the transmittal form also was never objected to by any Examiner during prosecution of the ’882 application (Chu ’330), the ’758 application (initial parent application), and all eight continuation applications in the priority chain of the ’797 patent, as well as Chu ’777 and all six reissue applications in the priority chain of Chu ’777, as noted in our Decision Denying Institution in IPR2021-00607, Paper 7 at 20. Moreover, none of the Examiners required the applicant to change its benefit claims from “continuation” to “continuation-in-part” in those continuation applications. 20 For the foregoing reasons, the ’882 application identified Chu ’886 with particularity and would have directly led an ordinarily skilled artisan to the document intended to be incorporated. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show that the Examiner erred in determining that the ’882 application (Chu ’330) properly incorporated Chu ’886 by reference. In addition, as discussed above, Petitioner admits that the ’758 application (the initial parent application) incorporated by reference the ’882 application. Pet. 28; see also Ex. 1013, 4:50−53. It also is undisputed that each subsequent application in the priority chain identified each preceding application as required by 35 U.S.C. § 120 and incorporated by reference the prior applications and the ’882 application. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:10−28, 9:36–39; Ex. 1008, 1:12−27, 9:27−29. As such, we also find that Petitioner has failed to show (1) the ’797 patent is not entitled to a priority date before April 15, 2011, (2) the ’436 patent’s parent applications did not properly incorporate by reference Chu ’886, (3) the amendments adding the subject matter from Chu ’886 improperly introduced new matter, and (4) that there is no support for the added written description in the ’436 patent, and hence the ’797 patent, in the respective parent applications. Pet. 23−39.” slip op. at 20
§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,977,797 - Intel Corporation v. Acqis LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 6, 2021 · IPR2021-01108 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–3, 7–9, 13–17, 19, 20, 25, and 33–35 under § 325(d), finding the same arguments were previously presented and no material examiner error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“review], the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We determine whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“review], the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” We determine whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) based on the framework set forth in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GMBH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, the Board applied a two-part framework in considering whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d): “(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics at 8. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id. at 10. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“II. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Petitioner relies upon Chu ’330 in both of the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Decided for patent owner
“As such, we find that Petitioner has failed to show (1) the ’768 patent is not entitled to a priority date before April 15, 2011, (2) the ’436 patent’s parent applications in the’768 patent family did not properly incorporate by reference the ’886 provisional, and (3) the amendments adding the subject matter from the ’886 provisional improperly introduced new matter. Pet. 18−30.” slip op. at 23
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,529,768 - Unified Patents Inc. v. KCG Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 10, 2021 · IPR2019-01536 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious; the revised motion to amend is denied because proposed substitute claims 14–26 are unpatentable as obvious or indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“We agree with Petitioner. Proposed substitute claim 24 recites “the handheld device” without antecedent basis. This lack of antecedent basis renders proposed substitute claim 24 indefinite, as we noted in our Preliminary Guidance. Pet. Opp. to RMTA 25; Prelim. Guidance 8 (“Proposed substitute claim 24 also recites ‘the handheld device’ and also suffers from the lack of antecedent basis). Despite having the opportunity to correct its error and amend proposed substitute dependent claim 24 when independent claim 14 was amended to remove the recitation of “a handheld device,” Patent Owner did not do so in its Contingent Revised Motion to Amend. RMTA 31. Proposed substitute claim 24 is indefinite because the claim “fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); see USPTO Memorandum on the Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021)13; see MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020). This is because “the handheld device” is only recited in proposed substitute claim 24, and the proposed substitute claim fails to inform one skilled in the art the scope of invention related to synchronizing “data on the handheld device” “in the virtual smart phone.” Because proposed substitute claims 25 and 26 depend from proposed substitute claim 24, we similarly agree with Petitioner that claims 25 and 26 also are indefinite for lacking an antecedent basis for the term “handheld device.” Pet. Opp. to RMTA 25. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 24–26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite.” slip op. at 40
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Whether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Absent clear reliance on the preamble in the prosecution history, or in situations where it is necessary to provide antecedent basis for the body of the claim, the preamble generally is not limiting.” Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assoc. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). When the limitations in the body of the claim rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble, then the preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention and is limiting. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A claim preamble also is limiting if the preamble is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 182 F.3d at 1305. We disagree with Patent Owner. Specifically, we do not agree that limitations in the body of the claims require the preamble to serve as an antecedent basis nor do they derive essential structure from the preamble. Rather, all of the elements recited in the body of claim 1 comprise a “virtual smart phone.” That is, we do not discern, and Patent Owner fails to persuasively point us to, any structure imparted by the preamble’s recitation of a “virtual smart phone.” See Pet. Reply 1–2. We similarly do not agree that the without the term “virtual smart phone” there would be no understanding of the “emulating” or “handheld device” limitations. Rather, the recited “software application executing on the processor” limitation provides the structure and meaning for the “emulating” of the “handheld device” features. Furthermore, we agree with the Petitioner that there is no evidence in the record that the prosecution history requires that the preamble is limiting, and the claims were distinguished during prosecution based on the recitation of a “virtual” smart phone. Id. at 2–3. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting. slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“on the process to . . . emulate features of a handheld device.” Ex. 1001, 12:58–60 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the term “‘emulate’ has a meaning in the art that is common and understood to mean ‘to imitate.’” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner provides a dictionary definition to support its contention. Ex. 2004 (defining “emulate” as “to imitate in an effort to equal or surpass”). Patent Owner contends the use of “emulate” in claim 1 comports with its commonly understood meaning as “to imitate,” as does the use of the term “emulate” in the written description. Pet. 18–20 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:3, 2:6–3:5, 12:54–13:2 (claim 1)). Petitioner argues that the term “emulate” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and does not contest Patent Owner’s construction of the term “emulate” as “to imitate.” Pet. 6–7; Pet. Reply 7. Petitioner, however, contests Patent Owner’s application of that construction to the asserted prior art. Pet. Reply 4–7 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 24–26). Petitioner specifically argues that Patent Owner implies that “(1) the imitation must be an exact duplicate in display and manner of input . . . or (2) the imitation relates only to the display and touch screen aspects.” Pet. Reply 4–5. In support of its position that Patent Owner’s interpretation of “to imitate” improperly narrows the meaning of “emulate,” Petitioner contends the written description discloses “less than full replication as emulation” and “controlling the handheld device th[r]ough control of a projected image using a variety of control input mechanisms provides emulation.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:2–5, 3:57–61, 4:63–66, 6:24–42). Petitioner also notes that the dictionary definition Patent Owner proffered indicates that an exact duplication is not required. Pet. Reply 7 (“The complete definition of emulate [as] ‘to imitate in an effort to equal or surpass.’ Ex. 1004, 3”). We conclude that a preponderance of evidence supports the construction of the term “emulate” to mean “to imitate,” without any further restriction such as exact duplication or only display or touch screen aspects. Accordingly, we construe the term “emulate” as “to imitate.”” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at or before the priority date of the ’955 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in the field of automotive information systems.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–39); Ex. 1034 ¶ 14 (Petitioner’s expert reiterating the same level of ordinary skill in the art). Patent Owner does not propose an ordinary level of skill in the art. We agree with and adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art as articulated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 9,671,955 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,671,955 - Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 1, 2021 · IPR2019-01350 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3 and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Shellhammer; claim 8 was not reached on the merits.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteDecided for patent owner
“Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp., 948 F.3d 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (footnote omitted). This is such a situation. We cannot reach a decision on the merits with respect to whether Petitioner has established the unpatentability of claim 8 under any ground of unpatentability asserted by Petitioner, i.e., (1) obvious over Sherman and Trompower, (2) obvious over Shellhammer and Trompower, and (3) obvious over Shellhammer and Panasik.” slip op. at 77
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner
“challenged claims indeed do satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119 with respect to the foreign application the priority of which it claims.5 Cf. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379– 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Dynamic Drinkware stated that because the USPTO does not examine priority claims unless necessary, the Board has no basis to presume that a patent is necessarily entitled to the filing date of its provisional application. Id. at 1380. Under the reasoning of Dynamic Drinkware, the same would be true for a foreign application the priority of which has been claimed. Patent Owner has made no substantive showing in this proceeding of actual entitlement to the filing date of the German Application, by satisfaction of all pertinent requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119. Accordingly, the effective filing date of the ’676 patent is August 8, 2001, not the earlier filing date of German Application No. 100 39 532.5.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“supported by the underlying disclosure of Sherman. Dr. Roy in paragraph 175 of his Declaration (Ex. 1003) cites to column 4, lines 1–8, of Sherman, which states: “The CFP occurs with a regular period, and all 802.11 terminals set their NAV’s during the CFP. To realize such a super frame the following sequence of frames/phases can be used as shown in the graph of FIG. 5.” Ex. 1004, 4:1–5. This disclosure does not indicate, as Dr. Roy concludes, that the control station “relinquish[es]” time to 802.11 CP access if no HIPERLAN/2 transmission requests are pending. Ex. 1003 ¶ 175. We also find unpersuasive Dr. Roy’s testimony that if there is sufficient HIPERLAN/2 traffic, Sherman teaches that the HIPERLAN/2 phase may be extended to very close to the entire superframe. Id. As discussed above, in Sherman, the CFP already is preset, without regard to whether or how many HIPERLAN/2 requests are pending. Ex. 1004, 6:5–6. Dr. Roy’s conclusion is not supported by the disclosure of Sherman and also is not adequately explained.” slip op. at 34
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner
“III. CONSTITUTIONAL APPOINTMENT Patent Owner argues that Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) “are principal officers under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution” “but undisputably are not appointed through the constitutionally-mandated mechanism of appointment for principal officers.” PO Resp. 60. The Federal Circuit, however, addressed this issue and devised a remedy in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2019) cert. granted sub nom. United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 2020 WL 6037206 (Oct. 13, 2020). Patent Owner argues that the remedy devised by the Federal Circuit “impermissibly rewrites the statutes governing APJs.” Id. at 61. We decline to consider the argument because the Arthrex decision states otherwise. See Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1337 (“This as-applied severance . . . cures the constitutional violation.”).” slip op. at 77
Patent outcomesUS 7,016,676 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,016,676 - Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 1, 2021 · IPR2019-01349 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Shellhammer; claim 5’s patentability could not be reached because its scope is ambiguous.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Further, even assuming that the Patent Owner successfully shows that the Examiner erred in not accepting the applicant’s foreign priority claim, that does not mean Patent Owner, in this proceeding, is automatically entitled to the filing date of the foreign application. If Patent Owner wished to challenge the prior art status of a reference, after Petitioner satisfied its initial burden of production by arguing the reference is prior art, Patent Owner would then have to demonstrate, in this proceeding, that the challenged claims indeed do satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119 with respect to the foreign application the priority of which it claims.5 Cf. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379– 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Dynamic Drinkware states that because the USPTO does not examine priority claims unless necessary, the Board has no basis to presume that a patent is necessarily entitled to the filing date of its provisional application. Id. at 1380. Under the reasoning of Dynamic Drinkware, the same would be true for a foreign application, the priority of which has been claimed. Patent Owner has made no substantive showing in this proceeding of actual entitlement to the filing date of the German Application, by satisfaction of all pertinent requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119. 5 “[I]f the effective filing date of what is claimed in a United States application is at issue, to preserve symmetry of treatment between sections 120 and 119, the foreign priority application must be examined to ascertain if it supports, within the meaning of section 112, ¶ 1, what is claimed in the United States application.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the effective filing date of the ’676 patent is August 8, 2001, not the earlier filing date of German Application No. 100 39 532.5.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we have no reason to disagree with Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill, which is supported by the testimony of Dr. Roy (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–63), except to note that the open-ended qualifier “or more” as applied to years of experience expands the level to encompass that of an expert, which is inappropriate for the level of 7 Patent Owner has not presented any objective evidence of nonobviousness or any argument in that regard. “ordinary skill.” Petitioner’s articulation without the expansive qualifier appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Therefore, we adopt the Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill, but without the expansive qualifier “or more” as applied to the amount of experience. C.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“stations which operate in accordance with a first radio interface standard and/or a second radio interface standard” Claim 1 recites: “stations which operate in accordance with a first radio interface standard and/or a second radio interface standard.” Ex. 1001, 6:24–26. Although Petitioner asserts that no construction is necessary for this phrase and that the plain and ordinary meaning applies, Petitioner nonetheless proposes that the phrase, according to its plain and ordinary meaning, means “stations, each of which operates in accordance with a first radio interface standard, a second radio interface standard, or both.” Pet. 14. Patent Owner asserts that no construction is necessary. PO Resp. 14. Regarding Petitioner’s articulation of the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase, Patent Owner has not refuted it in any way, and it appears consistent with what the phrase ostensibly indicates. Thus, on the record before us, we accept and adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the plain and ordinary meaning for this phrase. slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“renders the frequency band available for access by the stations working in accordance with the second radio interface standard if stations working in accordance with the first radio interface standard do not request access to the frequency band” Claim 1 recites: “renders the frequency band available for access by the stations working in accordance with the second radio interface standard if stations working in accordance with the first radio interface standard do not request access to the frequency band.” Ex. 1001, 6:32–36. For this phrase, Petitioner asserts that “claim construction is not necessary.”8 Pet. 15. Patent Owner, likewise, “submits that the Board need not construe this claim term.” PO Resp. 14. We agree with the parties that express claim construction of this claim term or phrase is not necessary. Although no additional discussion is necessary, we point out certain inaccuracies in the Patent Owner Response, to avoid potential confusion. slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,016,676 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,016,676
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.