- Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com LLC et al. v. VB Assets, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 7, 2022 · IPR2020-01367 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–36 were not shown unpatentable because Kennewick did not teach the claimed ambiguity of words having different meanings in different contexts or the required context identification.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) “would have at least a Bachelor-level degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field in computing technology, and two years of experience with automatic speech recognition and natural language understanding, or equivalent education, research experience, or knowledge.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion, and Patent Owner and its declarant, Dr. Gershman, both apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Resp. 3. On this record and given the absence of any dispute, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In its Petition, Petitioner asks us to construe the “implicit hypothesis” term of claims 38, 40, and 42. Pet. 7–8. As discussed above, however, Patent Owner filed a disclaimer that eliminated these claims from this proceeding. Petitioner does not ask us to construe any terms in the remaining challenged claims. See id.; see generally Reply. Patent Owner also does not ask us to construe any claim terms. See generally Response. On this record, we decline to adopt constructions of any claims. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“Dr. Smyth’s declaration testimony about words having different meanings in different contexts is unpersuasive. Dr. Smyth testifies that the keyword “‘temperature’ could be interpreted as an outdoor temperature or as a body temperature depending on context.” See Ex. 1002 ¶ 69. This testimony is not persuasive because the word “temperature” refers to a measurement of warmth or coolness in both examples. That is, “temperature” has the same meaning in both contexts. Moreover, as Dr. Gershman points out, Kennewick does not teach or suggest a body temperature. Ex. 2001 ¶ 26. Dr. Smyth’s testimony is unpersuasive for this additional reason. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 69.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“forth by both parties, we are not persuaded that Kennewick teaches or suggests that the word “temperature” has different meanings in different contexts, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. See Resp. 4–6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 23–27. As detailed above, Patent Owner’s arguments and the supporting testimony of Dr. Gershman are consistent with the ordinary and customary language of the claims, the specification of the ’681 patent, and the disclosure of Kennewick. See id. In contrast, Petitioner’s arguments are inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language and the specification of the ’681 patent, and are not adequately supported by the disclosure of Kennewick. On this record, and having considered the evidence and arguments put forth by both parties, we also are not persuaded that Kennewick teaches or suggests that the phrase “what about flight one hundred and twenty too?” has different meanings in different contexts, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. See Resp. 6–7; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28–30. Moreover, even if the “flight” example did describe two contexts (one in which “flight 122” exists, and one in which it does not), Petitioner’s argument would still fail because Petitioner has offered no persuasive evidence that Kennewick teaches or suggests identifying one of these two alleged contexts based on Kennewick’s short-term shared information (dialog history) and long-term shared information (user profiles) as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. For the reasons explained above, Patent Owner’s arguments and the supporting testimony of Dr. Gershman are consistent with and supported by the claims and specification of the ’681 patent and the disclosure of Kennewick. See Resp. 4–6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 23–27. In contrast, Petitioner’s arguments are not consistent with or supported by the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language, the specification of the ’681 patent, or the disclosure of Kennewick.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 8,073,681 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,073,681 - Xilinx, Inc. / Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Arbor Global Strategies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 2, 2022 · IPR2020-01571 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–6 over Zavracky, Chiricescu, and Akasaka; claims 7–12 with Satoh; and claims 13–30 with Trimberger.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Franzon, Petitioner contends that [t]he person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’226 patent would have been a person with a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, with at least two years of industry experience in integrated circuit design, packaging, or fabrication. Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 58–60). Patent Owner asserts that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) around December 5, 2001 (the earliest effective filing date of the ’226 Patent) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or a related field, and either (1) two or more years of industry experience; and/or (2) an advanced degree in Electrical Engineering or related field. PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 25). As we did in the Decision on Institution, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which comports with the teachings of the ’226 patent and the asserted prior art. See Dec. on Inst. 21. Patent Owner’s proposed level overlaps substantially with Petitioner’s proposed level. Even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level, the outcome would remain the same. C.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“Both of these limitations listed above recite “means” and further recite a function, thus creating a presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 applies. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (“An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”); see also Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part) (quoting Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). We agree with the parties that these limitations are means-plus-function limitations subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Pet. 11, 13; PO Resp. 11.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner, in focusing on this portion of the ’226 patent disclosure, does not adequately explain why buffer cells and configuration memory cells must be included in the proper construction of “wide configuration data port,” and seeks to import a functional description of the use of a wide configuration data port (“that allows parallel updating of logic cells in a programmable array through use of buffer cells”) into the claim construction. PO Resp. 15–17; PO Sur-reply 2–4. While the discussion in the ’226 patent describes an example of a wide configuration data port used in a specific way that aligns with Patent Owner’s proposal (Ex. 1001, 4:45– 59), other examples of the use of a wide configuration data port are included (id. at 4:59–65), and therefore we do not agree that one of ordinary skill would understand this use to be part of the construction of the term. We agree with Petitioner that the proper construction of the term does not require buffer cells. See Pet. Reply 4–6. Rather, we note that the specification of the ’226 patent contrasts loading of data to an FPGA in a byte serial fashion through a narrow port, which “results in [] long reconfiguration times,” with the use of a wide configuration data port, and therefore we determine that one of ordinary skill would understand the wide configuration data port, in contrast to the byte serial “relatively narrow” port, to include parallel connections between cells in the dies. See Ex. 1001, 4:3– 9. This additionally is consistent with certain arguments by Patent Owner, for example in the Patent Owner’s Response, which opens with a discussion of the “innovative” processor’s arrangement of die-area contacts, such as through-silicon vias, “into a wide configuration data port” and we find that description more consistent with the proper construction of this term. PO Resp. 1–2; see also PO Sur-reply 2–3 (“Arbor’s experts have been consistent that the word ‘wide’ in this term requires a sufficient number, and appropriate arrangement, of connections between the memory die and the programmable array to permit parallel updating of the array.”)” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for petitioner
“While corresponding structure need not include all things necessary to enable the claimed invention to work, it must include all structure that actually performs the recited function.” Default Proof Credit Card Sys. Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Conversely, structural features that do not actually perform the recited function do not constitute corresponding structure and thus do not serve as claim limitations. Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1308–09, (Fed. Cir. 1998); see B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.”). Patent Owner’s arguments regarding buffer cells connected with memory configuration cells using die-area interconnections requires that the buffer cells be located on a different die than the memory configuration cells, but the ’226 patent discloses only that “[t]he buffer cells 88 are preferably a portion of the memory die 66” and not that they always are on the memory die, and also that the significantly increased number of connections to the cache memory die may allow the cache memory die to replace configuration bit storage on the FPGA die. Ex. 1001, 4:50–54, 4:59–63. Thus, we decline to require in the corresponding structure that buffer cells or configuration memory are included on any die element. Rather, we find that what is disclosed as actually performing the recited function of “reconfiguring the programmable array within one clock cycle” is “a wide configuration data port and contact points formed throughout the area of the first integrated circuit die element and another integrated circuit die element.” The support for this is found in the ’226 patent’s comparison of the long reconfiguration times through a narrow port (Ex. 1001, 4:3–9) with the time to reconfigure through a wide configuration data port with a significantly increased number of connections (id. at 4:45– 65), and the implementation of this in a module that has multiple dies “which have a number of corresponding contact points, or holes, 70 formed throughout the area of the [die] package” (id. at 4:9–20). The use of a wide configuration data port, as per our construction, implicates two die elements. This was reflected in our preliminary claim construction, for which the corresponding structure described “contact points distributed through the first integrated circuit die element and the third integrated circuit die element.” Dec. on Inst. 29. As the function is “reconfiguring the programmable array within one clock cycle,” one of the die elements is the first integrated circuit die element, which includes the programmable array. slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 6,781,226 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,781,226 - Xilinx, Inc. v. Arbor Global Strategies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 2, 2022 · IPR2021-00737 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–38 are unpatentable as obvious under §103(a): claims 1–34, 36, and 38 over Zavracky, Chiricescu, and Akasaka; claim 35 with Satoh; and claim 37 with Alexander.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“4. Petitioner’s Showing, Claims 1–22, 36, and 38 Claim 1’s preamble recites “[a] processor module comprising.”” slip op. at 29
- Expert testimonyOther
“incorporation-by-reference of pages of evidence that Patent Owner attributes to Petitioner. Also, the cited three pages of Exhibit 2014 are in the middle of an industry article, and the pages are densely packed two-column pages that facially appear to have at least the same number of words in some of the complained-about citations to multiple paragraphs that Petitioner provides to Dr. Souri’s Reply Declaration. Here, Patent Owner leaves it to the Board to dig into the cited pages of Exhibit 2014 to find the alleged TSV interconnection issues and place it in context to the background information in the whole article. In reaching our decision, we exercised judgment as to all the evidence cited by the parties for its relevance, context, and substance, and weighed it accordingly.” slip op. at 123
Patent outcomesUS RE42,035 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham - Xilinx, Inc. v. Arbor Global Strategies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 2, 2022 · IPR2020-01570 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–38 unpatentable under §103 over the listed combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Accordingly, as we noted in the Institution Decision, in light of Lin’s teachings and absent explicit explanation during prosecution by the Examiner, the rejection and reasons for allowance provide further support the understanding that the “functional to accelerate” limitations require a number of contacts extending throughout the thickness of the wafers in a vertical direction (vias) within the periphery of the die to allow multiple short paths for data transfer between the memory and process[ing element].” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS RE42,035 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham - Xilinx, Inc. v. Arbor Global Strategies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 2, 2022 · IPR2021-00736 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 8–29 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 based on the listed combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Accordingly, as we noted in the Institution Decision, in light of Lin’s teachings and absent explicit explanation during prosecution by the Examiner, the rejection and reasons for allowance provide further support the understanding that the “functional to accelerate” limitations require a number of contacts extending throughout the thickness of the wafers in a vertical direction (vias) within the periphery of the die to allow multiple short paths for data transfer between the memory and process[ing element].” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Souri’s support for TSV issues is a citation to “Ex. 2014 at 85, 97, 90.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 82. Patent Owner provides the same citation without any explanation of the citation. PO Resp. 41. This amounts to the same type of incorporation-by-reference of pages of evidence that Patent Owner attributes to Petitioner. Also, the cited three pages of Exhibit 2014 are in the middle of an industry article, and the pages are densely packed two-column pages that facially appear to have at least the same number of words in some of the complained-about citations to multiple paragraphs that Petitioner provides to Dr. Souri’s Reply Declaration. Here, Patent Owner leaves it to the Board to dig into the cited pages of Exhibit 2014 to find the alleged TSV interconnection issues and place it in context to the background information in the whole article. In reaching our decision, we exercised judgment as to all the evidence cited by the parties for its relevance, context, and substance, and weighed it accordingly.” slip op. at 110
Patent outcomesUS 7,282,951 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,282,951 - Xilinx, Inc. v. Arbor Global Strategies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 2, 2022 · IPR2020-01568 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, and 8–29 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 based on the listed combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Accordingly, as we noted in the Institution Decision, in light of Lin’s teachings and absent explicit explanation during prosecution by the Examiner, the rejection and reasons for allowance provide further support the understanding that the “functional to accelerate” limitations require a number of contacts extending throughout the thickness of the wafers in a vertical direction (vias) within the periphery of the die to allow multiple short paths for data transfer between the memory and process[ing element].” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,282,951 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,282,951 - Xilinx, Inc. v. Arbor Global Strategies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 2, 2022 · IPR2021-00735 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 and 26–31 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Zavracky, Chiricescu, and Akasaka, with Satoh or Alexander added for dependent claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, the Board construes each claim “in” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“articulated reasoning to support a conclusion of obviousness. PO Resp. 2–3, 23–39; PO Sur-reply 10–14. (i) Alleged Misrepresentation of Chiricescu First, Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner misrepresents Chiricescu to allege motivation to combine Zavracky and Chiricescu.” PO Resp. 24–25 (Section VI.A.3(a)). Patent Owner specifically asserts that Chiricescu does not employ Zavracky’s principles, does not utilize Zavracky’s principles to improve reconfiguration time, and “does not employ Zavracky’s die-area vertical interconnections to connect a memory die to an FPGA, and no die-area vertical is involved whatsoever in reconfiguring Chiricescu’s FPGA.” PO Resp. 24 (citing Pet. 18–19, Ex. 1004, 232 (Exhibit page 1), 234 (Exhibit page 3); Ex. 2011 ¶ 6117). The record does not support this line of argument. Chiricescu’s Abstract indicates the paper describes “[t]he architecture of a 3-dimensional FPGA for reconfigurable computing machines” and “is based on a novel 3-D circuit technology developed at Northeastern University.” Ex. 1004, 232 (Abstract); see Pet. Reply 13. Chiricescu specifically notes “[a]t Northeastern University, the 3-D Microelectronics group has developed a unique technology which allows us to design individual CMOS circuits and stack them to build 3-D layered FPGAs which can have vertical metal 17 Dr. Souri’s declaration testimony cited by Patent Owner (Ex. 2011 ¶ 61) is a single-sentence conclusion that provides no more reasoning than that included in the Patent Owner Response to the Petition (Paper 19).” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“3. Independent Claims 1, 2, 26, and 27 Turning to the independent claims 1, 2, 26, and 27, Petitioner presents” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 7,126,214 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,126,214 - Xilinx, Inc. v. Arbor Global Strategies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 2, 2022 · IPR2020-01567 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–6 and 26–31 unpatentable as obvious over the cited combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“C. Claim Construction In an inter partes review, the Board construes each claim “in” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. More specifically, Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that “a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teaching of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” slip op. at 8
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“we do not agree with Patent Owner that we should not consider Dr. Franzon’s Reply Declaration. Patent Owner makes only general assertions that seem to be based primarily on multiple paragraphs being identified in a citation, which as discussed below we find provide context for Petitioner’s arguments. Additionally, Patent Owner does not address the significant overlap in the cited paragraphs with arguments made in the Reply. Moreover, in reaching our decision regarding the patentability of the challenged claims, we exercised judgment as to all the evidence cited by the parties for its relevance, context, and substance, and weighed it accordingly.” slip op. at 91
Patent outcomesUS 7,126,214 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,126,214 - PTAB · Feb 11, 2022 · IPR2021-01341 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4 and 7–10, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Tan and Boies obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute trial in an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review if the information presented in the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311, and any preliminary response filed under § 313, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 23
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Andrews, may not be credible because of some past relationship with Petitioner or its related companies. Prelim. Resp. 50–52. Patent Owner offers mere unsubstantiated allegations and cites no persuasive evidence that causes us to question Mr. Andrews’s credibility at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts: An ordinary artisan would have been a person having, as of October 24, 2001, a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science, or an equivalent degree with at least two years of experience in electronic user interface systems and vehicle sensor systems or related technologies. Additional education may substitute for lesser work experience and vice-versa. (Ex.1003, ¶40.) Pet. 3 (citing Andrews Declaration). Patent Owner does not address the definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, either to contest Petitioner’s proposal or to offer a different definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Institution Decision, we accept Petitioner’s unopposed, proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’994 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,713,994 - PTAB · Feb 11, 2022 · IPR2021-01353 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims, 1–7 and 14–16, under all three §103 grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts: An ordinary artisan as of October 24, 2001 would have been a person having a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science, or an equivalent degree with at least two years of experience in electronic user interface systems and vehicle sensor systems or related technologies. Additional education may substitute for lesser work experience and vice-versa. (Ex.1003, ¶19.) Pet. 3 (citing Andrews Declaration). Patent Owner does not address the definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, either to contest Petitioner’s proposal or to offer a different definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Institution Decision, we accept Petitioner’s unopposed, proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’709 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). B.” slip op. at 25
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“one of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore no claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 5. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner appears to provide some interpretation of the claims in its challenges and states that Petitioner’s assertion that the claims carry their plain and ordinary meaning is “flawed,” but does not expressly assert that any claim language requires express construction by the Board. See Prelim. Resp. 9–10, and generally. At this stage of the proceeding, we do not find it necessary to construe any claim language. The language of the claims appears to be readily understandable on its face. If any claim language is in dispute at trial, we encourage the parties to further develop the record thereon. C.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,532,709
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.