- Google LLC v. Traxcell Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 11, 2022 · IPR2022-00442 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Google did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We thus determine that Petitioner does not adequately demonstrate that the second wherein clause of the update limitation is met by Myr as Petitioner contends. We accordingly conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of independent claims 1 and 11 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Myr and Yiu, nor on its challenge of claim 22 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Myr, Yiu, and Machida. Because Petitioner’s challenges of the various challenged dependent claims suffer from the same defect by virtue of those claims’ dependence from one of the challenged independent claims, we also conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges of claims 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 17–19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Myr and Yiu, nor its challenges of claims 2, 6, 13, and 16 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Myr, Yiu, and Machida.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent training, in addition to approximately 2 years of experience working on telecommunications navigation and geolocation systems.” Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30–34). Patent Owner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Master of Science (‘MS’) Degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Cartography, or equivalent work experience in the field of computer networks, along with knowledge of the general structure of networked communication systems, its hardware and software components and underlying communications technologies.” Prelim. Resp. 6. Patent Owner further proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would be familiar with the latest communications standards.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001, 7). Neither Patent Owner nor Mr. Van Essen explains why the higher educational level is necessary, and, on the current record, we do not discern a basis for reaching a different conclusion under either proposed articulation of the level of ordinary skill. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Michalson, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Both parties note that, for a related patent, the Eastern District of Texas previously construed the term “preference flags,” recited in challenged independent claims 1, 11 and 22 of the ’147 patent, as “two or more flags to control access to tracking of the user.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1008, 54–55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–36); Prelim. Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 1008, 54–55). Both parties state that they apply this construction in their briefs. Pet. 3; Prelim. Resp. 5. In light of the parties’ apparent agreement, and because the district court’s construction appears reasonable, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The specification of the ’147 patent does not use the term “navigation information” outside of its title and claims, and we discern insufficient reason to include “composed as a number of segments” as part of its construction because the claims explicitly further limit “navigation information” by reciting such segmentation. See Ex. 1001, 128:17–19 (claim 1 reciting “wherein the first processor further sends the user navigation information to the network as a number of segments”), 130:21– 23 (claim 11 reciting “sending the user navigation information to the at least one other processor outside the network as a number of segments”), 132:54– 57 (claim 22 reciting “wherein the first processor further sends the user navigation information to the at least one other processor outside of the network as a number of segments”). Nevertheless, consistent with the dictionary definitions Patent Owner provides, we agree that the “term ‘navigation information’ includes at least ‘a course or way (route) from one place to another.’” Prelim. Resp. 5. In adopting such a construction for purposes of this Decision, we additionally note that each of independent claims 1, 11, and 22 further recites “traffic congestion information” as a distinct term. See Ex. 1001, 128:21–22, 130:26–27, 132:51. We accordingly treat “navigation information” and “traffic congestion information” as distinct in meaning. See CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,820,147 - Fluid Energy Group Ltd. v. Green Products And Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 5, 2022 · IPR2021-00357 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable: the asserted obviousness combinations failed to establish claim 1’s required removal of cementitious material from a distinct surface, and the precise limitations of claims 5 and 6.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s argument, that “[p]roviding a composition does not require understanding the nuances of each chemical contained therein,” is flawed. Sur-reply 1. To determine whether a claim is unpatentable for obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, we consider “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Here, Patent Owner acknowledges that “[t]he primary difference between known methods and the claimed invention of the ’912 Patent is a novel composition that solved problems associated with the previously used prior art compositions.” Sur-reply 11. Further, the specification informs that “[o]ne of skill in the art will recognize that these compositions are not intended to be limiting, and variations in ingredients and proportions can be made without departing from the spirit of the invention.” Ex. 1001, 3:13–16. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s view that an ordinarily skilled artisan would only need to rely on pre-formulated cleaning compositions and reported safety information, without “their own chemical knowledge,” is inconsistent with the disclosure of the ’912 patent. Sur-reply 2–3. An ordinarily skilled artisan, as required by the ’912 patent, would understand the nuances of the chemicals required by the terms of the claims. Therefore, we find that Petitioner’s definition, on this record, is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with the disclosures of the ’912 patent. See Ex. 1001, 3:13–16.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“of intended purpose or use, “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim” as drafted, taking care to avoid importing “‘extraneous’ limitations from the specification.” MPEP § 2111.02 (9th ed. rev. 10.2019 June 2020) (quoting Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Particularly, the MPEP explains that: If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Based on the information presented on this record, we determine that nothing in the body of claim 1 supports a determination that the “cleaning” clause of the preamble represents an additional method step of the claimed invention. Ex. 1001, 3:23–24. To the contrary, the body of the claim fully and completely sets forth all of the required method steps of the invention, as well as the components of the required composition. See id. at 3:25–4:2. Specifically, independent claim 1 comprises three method-step limitations, namely, “providing a composition,” “applying the composition to a surface,” and “removing the composition . . . from the surface.” Id. Those limitations, taken together, indicate that the preamble’s mention of “cleaning” is a non-limiting intended use of the composition specified in the body of the claim.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“To be clear, claim 1 requires removing a “released cementitious material” from “a surface.” Id. at 3:28–4:2. Petitioner provides no persuasive reason why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the term “cementitious material” to include “an efflorescence”—indeed, as just noted, the ’912 patent expressly distinguishes those two materials. Id. at 2:59–61. Claim 1 does not broadly encompass a step of removing a released efflorescence from a cementitious material, but is limited to by its plain terms to removing a “released cementitious material” from “a surface.” Id. at 3:28–4:2; see also id. at 2:61–62 (distinguishing “an efflorescence” from “cementitious materials”). In a nutshell, the claim language does not explicitly or implicitly support a construction that broadly encompasses a method of “applying the composition to a surface” of a cementitious material to “release” an efflorescense (id. at 3:28–29), even though one embodiment seems to allow for such use (id. at 2:38–39, 2:59–61). Taking account of the totality of the information presented, we determine that construing “surface” and “cementitious material” using the examples in the majority of the embodiments provided in the ’912 patent specification is necessary to “tether the claims to what the specification[] indicate[s] the inventor actually invented.” Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In doing so, we adopt “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention . . . [which] in the end, [is] the correct construction.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. Accordingly, on this record, we construe claim 1, and each other challenged claim through dependence from claim 1, to require a step of applying a composition to “a surface” structurally separate and distinct from the “cementitious material” that is released and removed “from the surface.” Id. at 3:28–4:2.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Sargent discloses “that urea hydrochloride is an inexpensive and useful agent for the removal of the build-up of water-insoluble metal salts on surfaces, and the dissolution of water-insoluble metal salt dispersions or suspensions.” Resp. 21–22 (quoting Ex. 1006, 2:3–6). Although the background section of the ’912 patent describes the “removal of water-insoluble cementitious and lime materials” as “a difficult process,” Petitioner directs us to no evidence sufficient to establish that calcium carbonate is “a cementitious material” within the meaning of claim 1. Ex. 1001, 1:13–14, 3:28–29; see Pet. 22; Reply 14 (totality of Petitioner’s information on point). Instead, in conclusory fashion, Petitioner simply assumes that Sargent’s disclosure of “water-insoluble metal salt dispersions or suspensions” and “calcium carbonate” constitute “cementitious material” within the scope of claim 1. Reply 14; see Pet. 22 (relying on Sargent’s disclosure of the removal of “calcium carbonate”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 103 (conclusory opinion cited at Pet. 22 and Reply 14). Further, Petitioner assumes that the “applying” and “removing” steps of claim 1 are satisfied by Sargent’s application of a composition “to a surface of a cementitious material to release a portion of the cementitious material therefrom.” Pet. 16 (Petitioner’s emphasis). Specifically, Petitioner argues that Sargent teaches the removal of released cementitious material from the surface because an ordinarily skilled artisan “would understand that a result of Sargent’s rinsing process is to remove the composition by rinsing with water, which will also release at least a portion of any cementitious material, such as calcium carbonate, dissolved from the surface.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:57–7:2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 103). For reasons explained above in our claim construction analysis, however, we construe claim 1 to require application of the composition to a surface distinct from the cementitious material being removed from the surface. See supra II.C.2. As Patent Owner contends, “It would be absurd to hold that cleaning a surface involves removing the surface from the surface,” because “[t]he background section of the ’912 Patent clearly contemplates that surfaces to be cleaned include surfaces of vehicles and that it is undesirable to ‘damage the target surface.’” Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:46). As explained above, we do not give limiting effect to the preamble of” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 7,938,912 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,938,912 - Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 1, 2022 · IPR2022-00279 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4 were unpatentable over the asserted § 103 combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that at least one of claims 1–4 of the ’705 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute an inter partes review.4 IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not found
“But as Patent Owner points out, Petitioner’s argument “makes no consideration for the use of the Kovatch tree by multiple users,” and “[a]ttempting to incorporate user preferences would result in a complex, unwieldy system as the number of users increases, running counter to Kovatch’s goal of a ‘scaleable, remotely manageable’ architecture.” Prelim. Resp. 36 (quoting Ex. 1004, 14:14–16). Based on our review of Kovatch, we agree with Patent Owner’s characterization that “the Kovatch system is not designed using [Petitioner’s] alleged hierarchical tree ranked with users’ preferences.” See id. at 37. That is, as Patent Owner asserts, “[t]he Kovatch tree is designed to be a navigational tool that allows the system to produce a list of valid destinations by prompting the users” with context-sensitive voice prompts, using Anita Prompt Generator 6, as discussed above in our summary of Kovatch. Id. at 36. Distinctly, Kovatch describes user preferences as stored in user profiles, without any explicit integration with the destination tree structure. See Ex. 1004, 16:7–8 (“During each user session, Anita Query Engine transfers relevant information to Anita Profiler. Anita Profiler captures and filters this information to build a repository of user preferences, navigational history and usage patterns.”); Prelim. Resp. 37 (Patent Owner asserting that “Kovatch makes clear that user preferences are stored outside of the Kovatch tree in user profiles”). The integration that Petitioner relies on in asserting that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that Kovatch includes a hierarchical order based on users’ preferences” appears instead to be derived from a hindsight modification of what Kovatch actually teaches. See Pet. 21; Sensonics Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction—an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.”).” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“Based on this sparse disclosure, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that, logically, in order for Wise’s documents to be stored in hierarchical order, each document must be assigned a number, indicating where in the ordered list it should be saved.” Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 192). At best, this assertion is grounded in hindsight. Contrary to Petitioner’s implication, Wise does not teach that source documents found by a search engine are “stored in hierarchical order”; rather, Wise states that the documents that make up the index are stored “in hierarchical order.” Ex. 1007, 10:7–9. And, as Patent Owner points out, “Wise does not even discuss an ‘ordered list’ or even any sense of numbering within the index.” Prelim. Resp. 46. Petitioner’s conclusory assertion does not adequately explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand documents that form an index stored in hierarchical order to teach storing the source documents in an ordered list. Mr. Lipoff’s testimony is no more edifying and simply repeats the same conclusion without providing a sufficient explanation. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 192. Indeed, Wise’s explanation that a user may use “navigation commands to traverse the index and invoke a link to the source document” suggests that the source documents are not “stored in hierarchical order,” contrary to what Petitioner and Mr. Lipoff assert. Ex. 1007, 10:9–10 (emphasis added); Pet. 42. Petitioner alternatively relies on the combination of Burrows with Wise to meet the limitations, contending that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to include Burrows’s rank numbering in Wise’s hierarchical order.” Pet. 42. This contention largely suffers from the same deficiency as the corresponding contention made in the context of Petitioner’s Kovatch-Burrows challenge. That is, because Burrows’s ranking operation is performed on results after execution of a query, “[r]anking cannot be applied to an index (either Wise’s hierarchical document index or Burrows’s index) because an index merely documents the content of records (web sites).” Prelim. Resp. 47. As Patent Owner explains, the index “cannot hold rank information because alone, it has no sense of a future query that might be executed.” Id. We accordingly determine that the Petition identifies insufficient rational underpinning to support its contention that it would have been obvious over Wise and Burrows to assign a rank number to each of the recited web sites, as required by independent claims 1 and 2. And, as for the Kovatch-Burrows challenge, this deficiency impacts the polling limitations that require changes in rank number. See Ex. 1001, 20:4–17, 20:36–47; Pet. 50–52; Prelim. Resp. 52–54. We thus conclude that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claims 1 and 2 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wise and Burrows.” slip op. at 28
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,721,705 - Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01031 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that the prior art taught or suggested the claimed narrow band-rejection filter or a sufficient reason to add one.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10 (noting that the qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing an unlimited amount of years of experience, and thus, does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner assert that construction of any claim term is required to resolve any issues in dispute. See Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54); PO Resp. 10–11.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached
“patent. Petitioner, who bears the burden to show Hirose is prior art, asserts that Hirose qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001 is before the March 16, 2002 effective filing date of the ’657 patent. See Pet. 5. Patent Owner responds that Hirose does not qualify as prior art to the ’657 patent because the inventors of the ’657 patent conceived and reduced to practice the ’657 invention on or before Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001, likely as early as June 13, 2001. PO Resp. 12. To support this position, Patent Owner provides argument and evidence relating to the conception of the subject matter recited in claims 1–8 and 10–21. Id. at 15– 39. An inventor may antedate a § 102(e) reference by showing that the invention was conceived before the effective date of the reference, followed by reasonably continuous diligence until the constructive reduction to practice. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Evidence of such conception and reduction to practice must be provided on a claim-by-claim basis.” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Dr. Glew’s testimony that Hong, like Barber, does not suggest that a filter is required to protect a DC power source applied to a target from an RF power source applied to substrate. Ex. 2009 ¶ 152. We further agree that, rather than supporting Petitioner’s position, Hong supports Patent Owner’s position that at the time of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have thought that RF coupling into a remote pulsed DC power source was a concern or that it would have been desirable to place a filter between the DC power source and the substrate. Id. ¶ 153.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 7,381,657 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,381,657 - Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01091 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner failed to establish the claimed narrow band-rejection filter or a sufficient reason to add one to Barber’s system.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10 (noting that the qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing an unlimited amount of years of experience, and thus, does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner assert that construction of any claim term is required to resolve any issues in dispute. See Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54); PO Resp. 10–11. In our Decision on Institution we invited the parties to address whether the claim term “providing an RF bias that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter to the substrate” requires that (1) the frequency of the RF bias be the same as the frequency at which the filter operates or whether (2) the frequency of the RF bias could be a shift from the frequency at which the filter operates. Inst. Dec. 37–38. Patent Owner states the term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which the parties in the copending litigation allegedly agreed requires the claimed filter “to have a rejection band set at a frequency of the RF bias power supply.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2021; Ex. 2022, 7–10). Petitioner “disputes PO’s suggestion of ‘agree[ment] (EX 2022, 10)” but argues that Patent Owner’s “positions are not dispositive because they do not distinguish the prior art.” Reply 1. On the full record now before us, we agree that express construction of this term is not necessary as resolution of the present dispute does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias is the same as, or a shift from, the frequency at which the filter operates. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“narrow band-rejection filter (aka notch filter).” Pet. 22–23. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Subramanian, testified that the difference between a narrow band-rejection filter and a band-rejection filter depends on the relationship between the bandwidth and the center frequency. See, e.g., Ex. 2030, 95:15– 21 (explaining that the bandwidth is “much, much, much smaller than the center frequency”). There is inadequate evidence that the bandwidth of Hirose’s filter is sufficiently narrow to constitute a narrow band-rejection filter. Rather, the evidence of record shows that Hirose’s filter is a band-rejection filter, not a narrow band-rejection filter.” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Not reached
“Petitioner met its burden of production to demonstrate that Hirose, which has a filing date prior to the filing date of the ’657 patent, was prior art by asserting Hirose was prior art under § 102(e). See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. Hirose’s earlier filing date shifts the burden of production to Patent Owner to produce evidence supporting a date of invention before Hirose’s filing date. See id. With its Response, Patent Owner presents evidence it contends shows a date of conception of claims 1–8 and 10–21 prior to July 18, 2001, followed by reasonably continuous diligence. For the purposes of this decision, we need not determine whether Hirose qualifies as prior art, because, as explained below, even if Hirose qualifies as prior art, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that all of the asserted claims would have been obvious over the grounds asserting Hirose.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 7,381,657 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,381,657 - Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-00104 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish the asserted obviousness grounds, including the required narrow band-rejection filter and motivation to modify Barber.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10 (noting that the qualifier expands the range without an upper bound, i.e., encompassing an unlimited amount of years of experience, and thus, does not meaningfully indicate the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“whether the claim term “providing an RF bias that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter to the substrate” requires that (1) the frequency of the RF bias be the same as the frequency at which the filter operates or whether (2) the frequency of the RF bias could be a shift from the frequency at which the filter operates. Inst. Dec. 37–38. Patent Owner states the term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which the parties in the copending litigation allegedly agreed requires the claimed filter “to have a rejection band set at a frequency of the RF bias power supply.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2021; Ex. 2022, 7–10). Petitioner “disputes PO’s suggestion of ‘agree[ment] (EX 2022, 10)” but argues that Patent Owner’s “positions are not dispositive because they do not distinguish the prior art.” Reply 1. On the full record now before us, we agree that express construction of this term is not necessary as resolution of the present dispute does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias is the same as, or a shift from, the frequency at which the filter operates. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Not reached
“patent. Petitioner, who bears the burden to show Hirose is prior art, asserts that Hirose qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001 is before the March 16, 2002 effective filing date of the ’657 patent. See Pet. 5. Patent Owner responds that Hirose does not qualify as prior art to the ’657 patent because the inventors of the ’657 patent conceived and reduced to practice the ’657 invention on or before Hirose’s filing date of July 18, 2001, likely as early as June 13, 2001. PO Resp. 12. To support this position, Patent Owner provides argument and evidence relating to the conception of the subject matter recited in claims 1–8 and 10–21. Id. at 15– 39. An inventor may antedate a § 102(e) reference by showing that the invention was conceived before the effective date of the reference, followed by reasonably continuous diligence until the constructive reduction to practice. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Evidence of such conception and reduction to practice must be provided on a claim-by-claim basis.” slip op. at 18
- BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable
“It is Petitioner’s burden to demonstrate that the cited art teaches each limitation of the challenged claims and to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d 1378. Here, Petitioner does not sufficiently demonstrate that Hirose teaches or suggests a narrow band-rejection filter as recited in claim elements 2[c] and 2[d]. See Pet. 21–22.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 7,381,657 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,381,657 - Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01030 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner did not prove claims 1–13 unpatentable because the grounds failed to establish the claimed filter limitations or a reason to combine Barber and Hirose.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:10–14, 2:45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–19). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached
“An inventor may antedate a § 102(e) reference by showing that the invention was conceived before the effective date of the reference, followed by reasonably continuous diligence until the constructive reduction to practice. Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Just the knowledge, however, that a filter can be used to protect or isolate one power supply from another in various types of plasma systems is not sufficient to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a filter in Barber’s system to protect Barber’s pulsed DC power source from its RF power supply. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). In an inter partes review, “the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363. In support of its challenge, Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert may rely on general knowledge, supported by evidence, to argue that a challenged claim would be obvious in light of the general knowledge of a skilled artisan. Koninklijke Philips v. Google, 948 F.3d 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (stating that although the prior art that can be considered in inter partes review is limited to patents and printed publications, “it does not follow that we ignore the skilled artisan’s knowledge when determining whether it would have been obvious to modify the prior art”). Although the Petition on its face relies on Barber and Hirose to meet the limitations of claim 1[f] (Pet. 24–36), Petitioner’s arguments rely not only on Barber and Hirose, but on numerous additional references, ostensibly to demonstrate the general knowledge of a skilled artisan. Id. For example, Petitioner cites to a number of references (i.e., Licata (Ex. 1010), Joo (Ex. 1014), Celestino (Ex. 1016), Quon (Ex. 1017), Johnson (Ex. 1018), Hong (Ex. 1019), Ohmi (Ex. 1020), and Keller (Ex. 1021)) that use different types of filters in various plasma systems for the “known use and benefits of filters in plasma systems for blocking interference/current of one power supply from another.” Pet. 32–33. Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have understood that choosing to reject a narrow band of frequencies depending on the bandwidth of Barber’s RF supply, was a known way to achieve “the benefits” of Hirose. Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1023 (Miller), 7:51–61; Ex. 1057 (Sill), 7:23–34; Ex. 1058 (Zennamo), 1:63–2:1). Petitioner also relies on a number of manuals (i.e. Exs. 1025, 1026, 1062, 1067, 1024, 1065, 1066) that illustrate “design concepts/guidance associated with use of such supplies in a plasma system with an RF power source.” Id. at 34–35. Even considering all the references in the Petition and the declaration, Petitioner does not adequately explain how the filters and principles in these relied-upon references and manuals would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to use a filter, let alone a narrow-band rejection filter, in Barber’s system.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 7,544,276 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,544,276 - Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-01090 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–13 not unpatentable because Petitioner failed to show the asserted combinations disclosed or motivated use of the claimed narrow band-rejection filter.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:10–14, 2:45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–19). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10. 14 Because we determine Petitioner has not sufficiently shown the challenged claims would have been obvious, we do not reach Patent Owner’s asserted objective evidence of non-obviousness. PO Resp. 70–72. Patent Owner does not appear to dispute this definition. See generally PO Resp. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we retain our modified adoption of Petitioner’s definition. We further note that the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “specific findings on the level of skill in the art . . . [are not required] ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the full record now before us, we determine it is not necessary to construe any claim term expressly, because resolution of the present dispute does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias power supply is the same as, or offset from, the frequency at which the filter operates. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in an inter partes review).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artNot reached
“Petitioner met its burden of production to demonstrate that Hirose, which has a filing date prior to the filing date of the ’276 patent, was prior art by asserting Hirose was prior art under § 102(e). See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1379. Hirose’s earlier filing date shifts the burden of production to Patent Owner to produce evidence supporting a date of invention before Hirose’s filing date. See id. With its Response, Patent Owner presented evidence it contends shows a date of conception prior to July 18, 2001, followed by reasonably continuous diligence. PO Resp. 11– 41. For the purposes of this decision, we do not determine whether Hirose qualifies as prior art to claims 1–13, because, as explained below, even if Hirose qualifies as prior art, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that any of the asserted claims would have been obvious over the grounds asserting Hirose.” slip op. at 17
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“frequency response and that a POSITA would have understood that Hirose’s filter is “tuned to reject a narrow band of frequency,” which operates “like a narrow band-rejection filter (aka notch filter).” Pet. 28–29. Petitioner’s argument that Hirose discloses or suggests a narrow band-rejection filter is contained in this short portion of the Petition and relies on an inference that a V-shaped curve necessarily signifies a narrow band-rejection filter. Any such inference that a V-shaped curve is sufficient to characterize a filter as a narrow band-rejection filter, however, is belied by Dr. Subramanian’s own testimony. Indeed, Dr. Subramanian explains that the shape of a curve alone, including the shape of the curves of Figures 2–9(G) and (H) of Gibilisco, is not sufficient on its own to determine whether a filter corresponding to that curve is a narrow band-rejection filter or a broad bandrejection filter. See, e.g., Ex. 2030, 69:13–18 (stating, just looking Figure 2– 9(H), he could not tell if the figure corresponds to a narrow band-rejection filter because “I don’t have enough information”). Dr. Subramanian further testified that additional information beyond the mere shape of the curve is required to determine if the curve represents a narrow band-rejection filter; for example, Dr. Subramanian states that it was Gibilisco’s characterization of Figure 2–9(G) as having a sharp band rejection response that led him to conclude it was a narrow band-rejection filter. See Ex. 2030, 68:20–69:4 (Dr. Subramanian testifying that he would not “characterize the figure depicted in G as a narrow band” based just on the figures, but “on all the information that’s given,” which includes “this reference specifically [stating] at G, ‘sharp band rejection response’”); see also id. at 60:24–61:23, 62:7–63:11. Significantly, Petitioner does not point to statements in Hirose itself” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,544,276 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,544,276 - Applied Materials, Inc. / Intel Corporation et al. v. Demaray LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2022 · IPR2021-00103 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish the claimed filter limitations and a reason to combine Barber and Hirose.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:10–14, 2:45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–19). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, except that we deleted the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate amount of relevant experience. Inst. Dec. 10.” slip op. at 9
- BurdenFwd mixedNot shown unpatentable
“4. Conclusion On this record, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Barber and Hirose in a manner that discloses all of the limitations of independent claims 1 or 6, as set forth above, or all of the limitations of the challenged dependent claims 2, 3, 7, and 8, which carry forward the same limitations as independent claims 1 and 6.” slip op. at 47
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“frequency response and that a POSITA would have understood that Hirose’s filter is “tuned to reject a narrow band of frequency,” which operates “like a narrow band-rejection filter (aka notch filter).” Pet. 28–29. Petitioner’s argument that Hirose discloses or suggests a narrow band-rejection filter is contained in this short portion of the Petition and relies on an inference that a V-shaped curve necessarily signifies a narrow band-rejection filter. Any such inference that a V-shaped curve is sufficient to characterize a filter as a narrow band-rejection filter, however, is belied by Dr. Subramanian’s own testimony. Indeed, Dr. Subramanian explains that the shape of a curve alone, including the shape of the curves of Figures 2–9(G) and (H) of Gibilisco, is not sufficient on its own to determine whether a filter corresponding to that curve is a narrow band-rejection filter or a broad bandrejection filter. See, e.g., Ex. 2030, 69:13–18 (stating, just looking Figure 2– 9(H), he could not tell if the figure corresponds to a narrow band-rejection filter because “I don’t have enough information”). Dr. Subramanian further testified that additional information beyond the mere shape of the curve is required to determine if the curve represents a narrow band-rejection filter; for example, Dr. Subramanian states that it was Gibilisco’s characterization of Figure 2–9(G) as having a sharp band rejection response that led him to conclude it was a narrow band-rejection filter. See Ex. 2030, 68:20–69:4 (Dr. Subramanian testifying that he would not “characterize the figure depicted in G as a narrow band” based just on the figures, but “on all the information that’s given,” which includes “this reference specifically [stating] at G, ‘sharp band rejection response’”); see also id. at 60:24–61:23, 62:7–63:11.” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“On the full record now before us, we determine it is not necessary to construe any claim term expressly, because resolution of the present dispute does not turn on whether the frequency of the RF bias power supply is the same as, or offset from, the frequency at which the filter operates. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in an inter partes review).” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 7,544,276 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,544,276 - Epic Games, Inc. v. Ingenioshare, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jun 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00295 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 7–12, 22–24, and 33–67 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the § 103(a) combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”), Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution in light of the Texas case where Patent Owner has asserted the ’038 patent and other patents against Petitioner. See Prelim. Resp. 7–12; supra § II.B.” slip op. at 16
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Under the circumstances here, two petitions challenging claims in the ’038 patent will not place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board or Patent Owner. In IPR2022-00202, the Board will consider challenges to related U.S. Patent No. 10,142,810 B2 based on Diacakis and alternatively the Tanigawa-Hullfish combination. See Epic Games, Inc. v. IngenioShare, LLC, IPR2022-00202, Paper 9 (PTAB May 23, 2022) (granting institution of inter partes review); supra § II.B. In IPR2022-00291, the Board will similarly consider challenges to related U.S. Patent No. 10,708,727 B2 based on Diacakis and alternatively the Tanigawa-Hullfish combination. See Epic Games, Inc. v. IngenioShare, LLC, IPR2022-00291, Paper 10 (PTAB May 24, 2022) (granting institution of inter partes review); supra § II.B. Thus, in other proceedings the Board will consider and become familiar with Diacakis, Tanigawa, and Hullfish and the relevance of those references to claims in related patents.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with Internet communication systems.” Pet. 25. Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional education might 5 The record does not include evidence concerning objective indicia of nonobviousness. compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Id. Dr. Almeroth’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–97. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not address the educational level or work experience of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1–7, 12–16. Based on the current record and for purposes of institution, we accept Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan as consistent with the ’038 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,492,038
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.