• Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2017 · IPR2017-00494 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that Maresh-I or Stearns disclosed structures the same as or equivalent to those in claim 1’s means-plus-function limitations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner

    “In clauses 1(c) and 1(d), the claim drafter signaled an intent to invoke § 112, ¶ 6 by using the term “means.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (“use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies” (citing Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703 (Fed. Cir. 1998))). We agree with both Petitioner and Patent Owner; clauses 1(c) and 1(d) are means-plus-function clauses. There is no persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption that use of the word “means” invokes § 112, ¶ 6. Thus, we look to the requirements a petition must satisfy if a claim includes a limitation written in means-plus-function format.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “There is a presumption that claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the specification. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, we need to consider the level of ordinary skill in the relevant technological field. The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’219 patent would have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and several years of experience designing mechanical systems or exercise equipment, or an equivalent level of education and experience. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 20–21); Prelim. Resp. 7. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art agreed to by the parties.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “function limitation based on prior art, Petitioner must: 1) identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure corresponding to the claimed function; and 2) specify where that structure or an equivalent is found in the cited prior art. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299–1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“a functional analysis alone will not suffice”). In this proceeding, Petitioner has failed to perform the second step of the analysis required.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “function limitation based on prior art, Petitioner must: 1) identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure corresponding to the claimed function; and 2) specify where that structure or an equivalent is found in the cited prior art. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1299–1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“a functional analysis alone will not suffice”). In this proceeding, Petitioner has failed to perform the second step of the analysis required.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,632,219
• Coalition For Affordable Drugs (Adroca) LLC v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2017 · IPR2015-01853 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–52 of the ’703, claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10–41 of the ’826, claims 1–8 of the ’685, and claims 1–40 of the ’437 were not shown unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Petitioner asserts constructions for the following claim terms, “less than 15 milligrams,” “release profile,” “matrix,” “improving walking,” and “initiating treatment.” Pet. 18–19. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner has failed to provide an explanation as to why the identified claim terms require construction and why the Board should depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms. Prelim. Resp. 17, n.4. In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Patent Owner and determined that it was unnecessary to construe explicitly the claim terms for purposes of the Institution Decision. See Dec. Instit. 6 (citing Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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))). We also determine here that we need not construe expressly any claim term in order to issue a Final Written Decision regarding the patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. Level of Skill Petitioner’s declarants, Drs. Pleasure and Polli, testify that a person of ordinary skill in connection with the ’703 patent would have had an M.D. or Ph.D. in neuroscience or a related field with an understanding of pharmacokinetics and at least some experience in providing drug therapy to MS patients. Ex. 1023 ¶ 16, Ex. 1044 ¶ 13. Additionally, Drs. Pleasure and Polli testify that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had access to a person having an advanced degree in pharmaceutics or pharmaceutical formulation, specifically oral sustained release formulations, or at least five years of experience in formulating sustained oral release drug products and may work as part of a multi-disciplinary team. Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 16–17; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 13–14. Patent Owner does not dispute this recitation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2042 ¶ 68 n.5. We adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art identified by Drs. Pleasure and Polli as it is consistent with the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of record); In re GPAC Inc., 14 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “In order for claims of the ’703 patent to be entitled to benefit of the filing date of the Provisional, the Provisional must provide written description support for those claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 120. To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and provide support for the challenged claims of the ’703 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the Provisional must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 261, 262 (CCPA 1976); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563– 64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The primary consideration in determining whether appropriate written description support exists “is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure.” Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 27

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “We are persuaded by Dr. Hayes’ testimony as confirmed by testimony from Drs. Pleasure and Polli, and conclude that the Provisional supports the CavSS ranges in claims 14–15 and 35–36. Dr. Hayes offers credible 34 testimony concerning how one of skill in the art would interpret Table 7 of the Provisional, which depicts essentially the same data as Table 3 of Hayes. See Ex. 2041 ¶ 17. Dr. Hayes interpretation of the data in Table 7 is supported by testimony from Drs. Pleasure and Polli that about two thirds of the measured data fall within one standard deviation and approximately 95 percent of measured values are within two standard deviations from the mean. Id. at 20–22 (citing deposition testimony from Drs. Pleasure and Polli confirming such an understanding). We agree with Dr. Hayes that “[i]n light of the fact that a POSA would immediately recognize that Table 7 of the ’894 Provisional (Ex. 1007-00045) shows possession of measured data beyond even two standard deviations from its reported mean values, a more complete view of the information reported in Table 7 would consider data dispersed beyond two standard deviations from the mean” to encompass a CavSS range from 3.7–37.8 ng/ml. Ex. 2041 ¶ 23. We are not persuaded by Dr. Fairweather’s testimony that Table 7 supports a CavSS of only 15.1 ng/ml to 26.5 ng.ml. See Ex. 1066 ¶ 21. Dr. Fairweather was asked if he could identify where “range” is defined as plus or minus one standard deviation, and he replied that he could not identify where he found such a definition, Ex. 2176, 44:13–22, but Dr. Fairweather confirmed such a definition is not how he would define “range” in his usual practice, Id. at 92:20–93:21. See also id. at 108:5–11 (conceding there may not be any document that defines “range” as one 35 standard deviation from the mean). When asked whether he could justify the range that he provided for CavSS in his declaration, Dr. Fairweather stated that he could not. Id. at 104:25–105:2. He testified that he conceded the smallest range so as to avoid a discussion of what’s the proper definition for range. Id. at 104:16–20. Dr. Fairweather stated twice that he was not a person of skill in the art and would not be able to answer what assumptions such a person would make when reviewing Table 7 of the Provisional. Id. 136:16–23, 138:14–139:7. Finally, Dr. Fairweather also testified that he could not rule out whether the CavSS data for the 10 mg b.i.d. dose described in Table 7 of the Provisional had a range of at least 15 to 35 ng/ml. Id. at 90:9–92:19. In light of these statements, we do not credit Dr. Fairweather’s testimony.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,007,826 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,007,826
• Coalition For Affordable Drugs (Adroca) LLC v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2017 · IPR2015-01857 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 of the ’685 patent were not shown unpatentable because S-1 was not prior art, alone or with Hayes or Juarez.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner

    “filing date of the Provisional, the Provisional must provide written description support for those claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 120. To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and provide support for the challenged claims of the ’703 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the Provisional must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 261, 262 (CCPA 1976); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563– 64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The primary consideration in determining whether appropriate written description support exists “is factual and depends on the nature of the invention and the amount of knowledge imparted to those skilled in the art by the disclosure.” Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 27

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Because the Provisional provides written description support for the challenged claims, S-1 potentially qualifies as prior art only under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), but not § 102(b), because the S-1 publication date of September 26, 2003 is less than one year before the filing date of the Provisional of April 9, 2004. As discussed in more detail below, however, Patent Owner has provided evidence that S-1 is not prior art to the claims of the ’703 patent under § 102(a) either because the pertinent portions of the S-1 are the original work of inventors Drs. Blight and Cohen. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(a); Katz, 687 F.2d at 454 (stating “one’s own work is not prior art under sec. 102(a) even though it has been disclosed to the public in a manner or form which otherwise would fall under [sec.] 102(a)”).” slip op. at 37

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Applicant-admitted prior artReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “We find that Petitioner’s evidence that allegedly casts doubt on the authorship of the relevant portions of S-1 is not sufficient to overcome the ample, unequivocal evidence presented by Patent Owner that supports our finding that the relevant portions of S-1 are the original work of Drs. Blight and Cohen alone. See In re Katz, 687 F.2d at 455. Both Drs. Cohen and Blight state that they alone are the inventors and sole originators of the work in S-1 upon which Petitioner relies. See Exs. 2044, 2045. Five other declarants, intimately involved in the development of S-1, two of which now work for entities other than Acorda, substantiate this testimony. See Exs. 2046–2048, 2052, 2056. Relying on statements that may, on their face, 42 indicate that others may have been involved without any evidence that others were, in fact, originators of the work in question or inventors is simply not enough to carry Petitioner’s burden to show that the S-1 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). For the reasons discussed above, we determine that S-1 does not qualify as prior art to the claims of the ’703 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b). Thus, all of Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of the claims of the ’703 patent, which depend on S-1 alone or in combination with Hayes or Juarez, fail. Petitioner, therefore, has not carried its burden to prove unpatentability of claims 1–52 of the ’703 patent by a preponderance of the evidence.9” slip op. at 42

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityNot reached

    “For the reasons discussed above, we determine that S-1 does not qualify as prior art to the claims of the ’703 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b). Thus, all of Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of the claims of the ’703 patent, which depend on S-1 alone or in combination with Hayes or Juarez, fail. Petitioner, therefore, has not carried its burden to prove unpatentability of claims 1–52 of the ’703 patent by a preponderance of the evidence.9 D. IPR2015-01853; IPR2015-01857; and IPR2015-01858 Petitioner’s patentability challenges to the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,354,437 B2 (“the ’437 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,007,826 B2 (“the ’826 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,354,437 B2 (“the ’437 patent”), at issue in IPR2015-01853, IPR2015-01857, and IPR2015-01858, respectively, essentially raise the same issues presented in the patentability challenge to the claims of the ’703 patent in IPR2015-01850. Therefore, we chose to 9 Because we find that S-1 is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), we need not reach whether S-1 is a printed publication.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 8,663,685 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,663,685
• Qualcomm Incorporated / Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2017 · IPR2015-01832 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found claims 1, 18, 81–84, 86, 88–91, 93, 94, 251–254, 256, 258–261, 263, and 264 not proven unpatentable under either asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “ordinary meaning of “bias signal” is “a signal having a steady predetermined level.” Resp. 28; Reply 6–7. The parties also agree that at least some information signals may be considered “bias signals.” The crux of the parties’ disagreement is which type of information signal. The ’940 patent defines “information signal” as “[t]he signal that contains the information that is to be transmitted. As used herein, it refers to the original baseband signal at the source.” Ex. 1001, 8:48–50 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’940 patent clearly defines “information signal” as “the original baseband signal at the source.” The ’940 patent defines “baseband signal” as: Any generic information signal desired for transmission and/or reception. As used herein, it refers to both the information signal that is generated at a source prior to any transmission (also referred to as the modulating baseband signal), and to the signal that is to be used by the recipient after transmission (also referred to as the demodulated baseband signal). Ex. 1001, 7:41–47. The ’940 patent clearly gives a broad meaning to “baseband signal” such that it encompasses any signal desired for transmission and/or reception, but the definition of “information signal,” as quoted above, does not refer to any baseband signal. Rather, it refers to “the original baseband signal at the source.” Ex. 1001, 8:48–54. By including the terms “original” and “at the source,” the meaning of information signal, as defined by the ’940 patent, is more limited than the definition of a baseband signal. Thus, Petitioner’s contention that the meaning of “information signal,” and, hence, “bias signal” should be expanded to include any “baseband signal” (Reply 4) improperly takes “information signal” out of context. Petitioner’s contention eliminates the terms “original” and “at the source” from the ’940 patent’s definition of “information signal,” without providing any reason why those terms should not be considered. Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner and construe “bias signal” to mean “(1) a signal having a steady, predetermined level or (2) the original baseband signal at the source.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “Further, Patent Owner explains that “[t]he parties agree on the portion of the ‘to gate’ construction that is material to this IPR, i.e., that ‘to gate,’ the switch module must change between connecting and disconnecting the bias signal from the switch module’s output.” Id. at 37 (citing Pet. 13–14). Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with the construction proposed by Petitioner. See Dec. 11 (discussing Petitioner’s construction of “to gate [a signal]” as “to change . . . between (i) connecting a signal at an input to an output such that the input and output have an equal voltage, and (ii) disconnecting the signal from the output” (quoting Pet. 14)). In light of the consistency between the proposed constructions, and in light of the lack of an actual controversy between the parties with respect to the impact of the minor differences in the proposed meanings of this term, we need not construe expressly the term further.4 Petitioner’s Reply does not challenge Patent Owner’s arguments regarding these claim terms. Accordingly, we adopt the construction of “switch module,” as reproduced above, for the reasons explained in our Decision to Institute. See Dec. 8–11. Additionally, we decline to construe expressly the terms “summer” and “to gate,” for the reasons discussed above.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art as of October 1998 would possess, at a minimum, either (a) a master of science degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of experience in radio frequency circuit design, or (b) a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering with three or more years of experience with the design and development of RF circuits. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–29). Petitioner’s argument is supported by Dr. Larson’s testimony. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–29. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s designation of the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of the invention. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “High Level Radio Frequency (“RF”) Source 10. The RF signal contains the information that television watchers see and hear.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1023, 1:14–17). Petitioner asserts that Dobrovolny’s “RF Source signals are information signals that constitute ‘bias signals’ as that term is defined by the ‘940 patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154, 210). Petitioner’s position is based on its claim construction of “bias signals” as “encompassing information signals.” Id. Notably, in the Petition,5 Petitioner does not assert that the recited “bias signal[s]” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of Dobrovolny’s RF Source signals; rather, Petitioner’s position is that “bias signal[s]” are disclosed expressly. See id. (“RF Source signals . . . constitute ‘bias signals’”) (emphasis added).6 Patent Owner’s primary argument is as follows: [E]ven accepting [Petitioner’s] assertion that the ’940 patent expanded the ordinary meaning of ‘bias signal’ to include ‘information signal’ as defined in the patent . . . . [Petitioner] does not even allege, much less prove, that the purported ‘bias signal’—Dobrovolny’s high frequency Radio Frequency (RF) television signal—meets either of these definitions. Resp. 38–39. Patent Owner reiterates that Petitioner’s “only attempt to prove that the Dobrovolny RF television signal satisfies the claimed first and second bias signals is its assertion that Dobrovolny’s ‘RF signal contains the information that television watchers see and hear.’” Id. at 39 (quoting 5 As discussed infra, see Section III.C., Petitioner’s additional argument that bias signals would have been obvious in light of Dobrovolny’s RF Source signals constitutes a new argument, set forth only in Petitioner’s Reply, and we do not consider it here for the reasons explained below. 6 With respect to independent claim 18, Petitioner relies upon its arguments directed to the similar claim limitations of claim 1. See Pet. 44–45 (referring to Petitioner’s arguments directed to claim 1). Pet. 29). Patent Owner contends, however, that “an ‘information signal’ is not just any signal containing information . . . as [Petitioner’s] argument implicitly presumes. Rather, as defined in the ’940 patent, an information signal is restricted to ‘the original baseband signal at the source.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1001, 8:48–54). Petitioner’s argument in its Reply is based on its incorrect claim construction of “bias signal” as encompassing any information signal. See, e.g., Reply 7 (asserting that the “bias signal” is met by Dobrovolny’s disclosure because it teaches “an information carrying High Level RF Source for reception”) (citing Ex. 1023, 1:14–17; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 154, 210). As explained above, “bias signal” is understood to mean “(1) a signal having a steady, predetermined level or (2) the original baseband signal at the source.” See supra Section II.A. Petitioner does not argue, and has not established, that Dobrovolny’s RF Source signal is either at a steady, predetermined level or is the original baseband signal at the source. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that Dobrovolny discloses the “bias signal” limitations recited in claims 1 and 18, and the claims that depend from each.7 Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,091,940 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,091,940
• Qualcomm Incorporated / Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2017 · IPR2015-01831 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 22, 23, 100, 113–116, 118, 119, 309–312, 314, 315, and 319 are unpatentable as obvious over Nozawa and Philips 4052, with Maas added for claims 119 and 315.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “During the trial, ParkerVision asserted that we should maintain our construction of “harmonic” (PO Resp. 18–22), and Qualcomm did not address the adopted construction. With respect to the remaining terms, ParkerVision argues that none of these terms are material to the remaining dispute between the parties, which is focused on the “harmonic” limitation. Id. at 23–24. On this, we agree. As the remaining terms are not material to the parties’ dispute, we decline to construe them further. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Qualcomm contends, citing Dr. Larson’s testimony, that one of ordinary skill in the art as of October 1998 would possess, at a minimum, either (a) a master of science degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of experience in radio frequency circuit design, or (b) a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering with three or more years of experience with the design and development of RF circuits. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–39). ParkerVision does not contest Qualcomm’s designation of the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of the invention. Accordingly, we adopt Qualcomm’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Qualcomm contends that “Nozawa and Philips 4052 both provide architectures and methods for upconversion that can be used for a transmitter.” Pet. 21. Indeed, as Qualcomm observes, the 74HC4052 chip described in Philips 4052 is used in Nozawa. Id. at 23–24. We agree with Qualcomm that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to look to the disclosure of Philips 4052 to learn more about the operation of the 74HC4052 chip disclosed in Nozawa. ParkerVision does not challenge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Nozawa with Philips 4052.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “The parties’ disagreements over the various inputs and permutations of the Maas equation aside, one point appears to be beyond dispute: under some conditions, but not all conditions, the Maas equation shows that Nozawa’s structure will produce a periodic signal that contains integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. In other words, the structure of Nozawa is capable of producing a signal that satisfies the limitations of the claim. Qualcomm argues that this is sufficient to show unpatentability. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Gen. Electric Co. v. Jewel Incandescent Lamp Co., 326 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1945)). On this point, we agree. The challenged claims at issue here are apparatus claims; as such, they “cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In other words, the “periodic signal” limitations, which are directed to the transitory electrical signals produced by the apparatus, cannot give rise to patentability so long as the underlying apparatus has been shown to be capable of generating those signals. Here, it is undisputed that Nozawa’s circuit is capable of generating a periodic signal having a plurality of harmonics, wherein those harmonics are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. Furthermore, we agree with Qualcomm that Nozawa’s low-pass filter is capable of isolating one or more of those harmonics, as desired. Accordingly, we find that Qualcomm has shown,5 by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Nozawa and Philips 4052 teaches each and every limitation of claims 4, 22, 23, 100, 113–116, 118, 309–312, 314, and 319. Additionally, for the reasons discussed above, we find that Qualcomm has shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to combine the teachings of the references in the manner proposed.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 6,091,940 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,091,940
• Qiagen Inc. v. Oxford Immunotec Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2017 · IPR2016-01575 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–9 unpatentable over the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We have authority to institute an inter partes review only if the information presented in the Petition shows “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; 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.4(a), 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, pursuant to § 314, we do not institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’821 Patent, and the Petition is denied. A.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “structurally related to the physical substrate holding the printed matter, may not be given patentable weight. In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[A] limitation is printed matter only if it claims the content of information.” Id. If determined to claim printed matter, the limitation is nonetheless given patentable weight “if the claimed informational content has a functional or structural relation to the substrate.” Id. at 851. According to Petitioner, the “CD8+ epitope” limitation claims printed matter because it is merely the content of information, namely “the string of amino acids in a subfragment of ESAT-6 that includes the amino acids that constitute a CD8+ epitope.” Pet. 15. Petitioner likens the “CD8+ epitope” to an “instruction limitation” that merely “informs” about the epitope in ESAT-6. Id. (citing In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). We disagree. In Kao, the relevant limitation claimed “providing information” regarding a particular biological correlation, which the Federal Circuit concluded had no functional relationship to the following step of “providing” a particular drug treatment. Kao, 639 F.3d at 1072–73. Here, the relevant limitation is “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope.” The epitope is not “printed” onto a physical substrate (i.e., the peptide); it is part of the substrate—the epitope is a sequence of amino acids that is recognized by a CD8+ T cell, and those amino acids are part of the amino acids that make up the peptide itself. Moreover, the epitope does not merely inform someone of purely informational content. Rather, the epitope has a structural and functional relationship to the claims and to the substrate (i.e., the peptide subfragments). For example, claim 1 recites, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope” (emphasis added). The claim further recites, “measuring secretion of a cytokine from said T cells” to determine “whether said T cells are activated by said peptide subfragment.” The specification describes the activation of CD8+ T cells by peptide subfragments that are CD8+ epitopes. See Ex. 1001, 2:30–45. Thus, the CD8+ epitopes are involved in the activation of T cells, which yields immunogenicity (i.e., generation of an immune system response) in the form of cytokine secretion, which is measured as part of the claimed method. The CD8+ epitope limitation is more akin to the attribute data object (ADO) limitations in In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1994), where the recited ADOs were processed by a computer and affected how data was stored and organized in a memory. Thus, the CD8+ epitope limitation does not constitute printed matter with no patentable weight. See DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 851. B.” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Pet. 22–34. The Petition does not, however, demonstrate sufficiently that Brandt-1996 discloses, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope,” which is recited in both independent claims. Brandt-1996 discloses the results of a study in which murine (i.e., mouse) T cells were exposed to whole ESAT-6 protein, as well as nine subfragments of ESAT-6. Ex. 1010, 3528, Fig. 3. Whole ESAT-6 protein, as well as two of the subfragments, yielded a response from the T cells in the form of significant IFN-γ release. See id. at 3529–31, Figs. 2, 4. Petitioner argues that Brandt-1996 discloses exposing T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 because it reports a positive response (i.e., heightened IFN-γ release) to the “p1-20” peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 (also referred to as the “p1” peptide). Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1010, 3531, Table 2). The Petition does not explain, however, why exposing the mice in Brandt-1996 to the “p1-20” peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 necessarily exposed the T cells to an immunogenic amount of peptide containing a CD8+ epitope. Petitioner’s assertion that a CD8+ epitope is not required by the claims is based on its arguments regarding printed matter, which are unpersuasive as discussed above. Alternatively, Petitioner argues that whole ESAT-6 protein contains CD8+ epitopes and, thus, the “ESAT-6 fragments disclosed in Brandt-1996 necessarily constitute ESAT-6 subfragments that contain a CD8+ epitope.” Pet. 23. Only two of the subfragments tested in Brandt-1996 were immunogenic, however, as required by the challenged claims. See Ex. 1010, Fig. 4 (showing responses to the “p1” (amino acids 1-20) and “p6” (amino acids 51-70) subfragments). Petitioner asserts that amino acids 15–29 and 61–82 correspond to murine CD8+ epitopes, but neither of them correspond to the immunogenic subfragments disclosed in Brandt-1996. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1008, 3348 (“Bennekov-2006”)). Although Petitioner also asserts that ESAT-6 contains human and bovine CD8+ epitopes (id.), Brandt-1996 only tested mice and, thus, does not disclose immunogenicity for these epitopes specific to other species. Finally, Petitioner argues Brandt-1996 shows that whole ESAT-6 protein is immunogenic, which inherently discloses an immunogenic amount of subfragments containing CD8+ epitopes because ESAT-6 protein necessarily is processed into subfragments. Pet. 24. As Patent Owner argues, however, the record indicates that exposure to ESAT-6 protein does not necessarily produce a CD8+ response, particularly when a non-viral vector is used. See Prelim. Resp. 55–57. For example, Bennekov-2006 (cited by Petitioner as disclosing murine CD8+ epitopes) reports a response from CD8+ T cells of mice exposed to ESAT-6 protein via an adenovirus vector, but no significant CD8+ response when a liposome vector was used. See Ex. 1008, 3348, Fig. 2. It is undisputed that the Brandt-1996 study did not use a viral vector. Despite citing Bennekov-2006 to support its inherency arguments, Petitioner does not address or explain these aspects of Bennekov-2006, or their bearing on the disclosures of Brandt-1996. For the above reasons, Petitioner has not provided sufficient information showing that Brandt-1996 discloses, explicitly or inherently, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope,” as required by the challenged claims. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to anticipation by Brandt-1996. D.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Finally, Petitioner argues Brandt-1996 shows that whole ESAT-6 protein is immunogenic, which inherently discloses an immunogenic amount of subfragments containing CD8+ epitopes because ESAT-6 protein necessarily is processed into subfragments. Pet. 24. As Patent Owner argues, however, the record indicates that exposure to ESAT-6 protein does not necessarily produce a CD8+ response, particularly when a non-viral vector is used. See Prelim. Resp. 55–57. For example, Bennekov-2006 (cited by Petitioner as disclosing murine CD8+ epitopes) reports a response from CD8+ T cells of mice exposed to ESAT-6 protein via an adenovirus vector, but no significant CD8+ response when a liposome vector was used. See Ex. 1008, 3348, Fig. 2. It is undisputed that the Brandt-1996 study did not use a viral vector. Despite citing Bennekov-2006 to support its inherency arguments, Petitioner does not address or explain these aspects of Bennekov-2006, or their bearing on the disclosures of Brandt-1996. For the above reasons, Petitioner has not provided sufficient information showing that Brandt-1996 discloses, explicitly or inherently, “exposing said T cells to an immunogenic amount of a peptide subfragment of ESAT-6 that contains a CD8+ epitope,” as required by the challenged claims. Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to anticipation by Brandt-1996. D.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,617,821
• Merial, Inc. v. Sergeant’S Pet Care Products, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 29, 2016 · IPR2016-00798 · APJ Susan L C Mitchell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–22 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “we find that Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable. The key limitation missing from any teaching or suggestion of the combination is “3% to 16% (w/w) cyphenothrin” (or any narrower range therein) combined with fipronil. Sirinyan provides a formulation using fipronil and cyphenothrin, but expressly states that cyphenothrin should be used in a concentration range of from 30 to 60% by weight, which is well outside of any of the claimed ranges for cyphenothrin in the challenged claims. As Patent Owner points out, a lower range within the claimed range is called out for other α- cyanopyrethroids with the possible use of a synergist (that is not required in the challenged claims), but not for cyphenothrin. Prelim. Resp. 7–8, 21, 29– 32. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show why one of ordinary skill in the art would ignore the express teaching of Sirinyan and lower the concentration of cyphenothrin to a claimed range in a formulation with fipronil. Garden does not provide any such impetus. As Patent Owner states, Garden describes the activity of cypermethrin and alphacypermethrin (two particular species of the α-cyanopyrethroid genus) without fipronil and without additionally providing any specific teaching with respect to cyphenothrin except to include it in a listing as an α-cyanopyrethroid. Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 1006, Examples 1-15); Ex. 1006, 2:15–33 (stating preferred compounds include cyphenothrin). The listing of cyphenothrin as one of a list of preferred pyrethroids, without more, would not suggest to one of skill in the art that a lower amount of cyphenothrin should be used in a formulation with fipronil.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Sirinyan provides a formulation using fipronil and cyphenothrin, but expressly states that cyphenothrin should be used in a concentration range of from 30 to 60% by weight, which is well outside of any of the claimed ranges for cyphenothrin in the challenged claims. As Patent Owner points out, a lower range within the claimed range is called out for other α- cyanopyrethroids with the possible use of a synergist (that is not required in the challenged claims), but not for cyphenothrin. Prelim. Resp. 7–8, 21, 29– 32. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show why one of ordinary skill in the art would ignore the express teaching of Sirinyan and lower the concentration of cyphenothrin to a claimed range in a formulation with fipronil. Garden does not provide any such impetus. As Patent Owner states, Garden describes the activity of cypermethrin and alphacypermethrin (two particular species of the α-cyanopyrethroid genus) without fipronil and without additionally providing any specific teaching with respect to cyphenothrin except to include it in a listing as an α-cyanopyrethroid. Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 1006, Examples 1-15); Ex. 1006, 2:15–33 (stating preferred compounds include cyphenothrin). The listing of cyphenothrin as one of a list of preferred pyrethroids, without more, would not suggest to one of skill in the art that a lower amount of cyphenothrin should be used in a formulation with fipronil.” slip op. at 12

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached

    “E. Real Parties-In-Interest Patent Owner asserts that Merial Limited, Merial LLC, and Sanofi had a measure of control over this proceeding requiring them to be named as real parties-in-interest. Pet. 9–17. Because we have found that Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on any challenged claim, we need not address whether these parties constitute real parties-in-interest. Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00731, slip op. at 5 (PTAB March 2, 2016) (holding satisfying the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a) is not jurisdictional). Any real party-ininterest issue is moot.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Neither party believes that any claim term or phrase needs to be expressly interpreted. See Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 5–39 (offering no express 1 PCT App. WO 2008/080542 A2, published Jul. 10, 2008 (Ex. 1004, “Sirinyan”). The Sirinyan reference is a German-language reference. Petitioner provided a certified English-language translation (Ex. 1005). 2 US Patent 4,902,510, issued Feb. 20, 1990 (Ex. 1006, “Garden”). 3 Mark Suarez, EPA Product Performance/Efficacy Review for Sergeant’s Cyphenothrin Squeeze-On for Dogs, Sergeant’s Cyphenothrin + IGR Squeeze-On for Dogs, and Sergeant’s Cyphenothrin + Methoprene Squeeze- On for Dogs, Nov. 7, 2006 (Ex. 1007, “the EPA Review”). constructions). We agree that we do not need to interpret expressly any claim term or phrase to resolve whether a trial should be instituted. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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 4

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,614,244
• Deere & Company v. Richard GrammAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00898 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 and 27–34 are unpatentable as obvious over the three instituted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “significantly different, and the differences between their proposed levels of ordinary skill would not affect the outcome of this proceeding.5 In light of our review of the record, including the ’395 patent, the competing expert testimony, and the issues discussed during the oral argument, we agree with different aspects of the parties’ proposals. First, as Petitioner notes in its Reply, a mechanical engineer having familiarity with hydraulic systems and sensors, as Patent Owner proposes, does not have experience necessarily with agricultural equipment or combines. Reply 2, n.1. Thus, Patent Owner’s educational prong is overly broad. Second, Petitioner’s educational prong, on the other hand, is too narrow, requiring “design” of combines or agricultural equipment. Third, we find that Petitioner’s experience prong also is too narrow, because it requires experience specifically in the “design” of agricultural equipment or combines. Accordingly, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “a mechanical engineer having familiarity6 with agricultural equipment, such as combines, and hydraulic systems and 5 Indeed, neither party argues that any difference between the proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome of this proceeding. 6 The familiarity may have been gained, as proposed by Petitioner, by “approximately three years of experience in combine or agricultural equipment design, including components thereof, such as headers and header height control systems” (Pet. 5 (citation omitted)), but also may have been gained through other experience. sensors” or “a person having 10 or more years of experience7 working with combines.”8” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that under either party’s proposed construction, Cleveland’s sensor arm, including spring 38, is flexible. See infra pages 41–42 (Section III.B.5.a.ii.b)2.b.). Accordingly, we need not choose between either party’s proposed constructions. 2. Other Claim Terms The parties propose constructions for several additional claim terms, including “pre-loaded,” “angular deflection sensing means,” “control means,” “biasing means,” “first stop means,” “second stop means,” “guard means,” and “flange.” Pet. 11–15; Resp. 19–23. Although the parties have some disagreement as to the meaning of several of these terms, there is no dispute that the references upon which we instituted review disclose these elements of the claims.4 Accordingly, there is no controversy as to these terms that requires our resolution in order to ascertain whether the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the invention in light of the references and arguments before us.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingMixed

    “a “header” or a “combine” per se; rather, it is a header height control apparatus—an “apparatus for detecting and controlling the height above the soil of an agricultural machine as it traverses a field.” Ex. 1001, 1:11–13. Nonetheless, there is no prohibition on a patentee drafting his or her claim in a manner that further limits the invention if additional structure is recited in the claim. As argued by Patent Owner, the recitation of “a non-cut crop header” and “a combine” in the preamble of claim 1, provide antecedent basis for at least two terms recited in the body of the claim—“the header” and “said combine.” The body of the claim reflects that the patentee chose to claim the header control apparatus in terms not limited to said apparatus standing alone, but rather the apparatus as attached (coupled) to the header of a combine. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:33–34 (“a pre-loaded, generally linear flexible arm coupled to a forward portion of the header” (emphasis added)); 7:44–45 (“control means coupled to said header” (emphasis added)); 7:48– 51 (“wherein said flexible arm and angular deflection sensing means are attached to a head housing disposed on a forward portion of said combine” (emphases added)); 7:54–56 (“wherein said mounting bracket further couples said flexible arm to a forward end of said head housing” (emphasis added)). The prosecution history reflects that the patentee at first desired the recitation of “header” in the claim to be limited to “non-cut crop” headers, in an attempt to distinguish cut crop headers. Ex. 1002, 142 (Amendment filed June 19, 2000). The examiner, however, did not accept such argument (id. at 152–53 (Office Action mailed Aug. 24, 2000)), and the patentee did not reiterate or maintain the argument in amending the claims following the August 24, 2000, final rejection. Id. at 158–63 (Amendment filed Nov. 22, 2000). Nonetheless, the prosecution history is informative on this issue. In light of our discussion above regarding the claim language, specification, and the prosecution history, we do not construe the entire preamble as limiting. In particular, the preamble recites an apparatus for maintaining, and is presented clearly as reciting an intended use. That being said, we agree with the Patent Owner that the phrase “non-cut crop header” limits the terms “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 such that “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 are the same “non-cut crop header” recited in the preamble of the claim.13” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “e. Conclusion of Obviousness We have considered Petitioner’s evidence and argument and determine that the combination of DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and DA meets the limitations of claims 1–7, 10, 27, 28, and 34, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason, with rational underpinning, for combining the teachings of these references. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary and determine that they are unpersuasive. The parties do not introduce or rely on objective indicia of nonobviousness. After weighing the evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–7, 10, 27, 28, and 34 would have been obvious over DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and DA.” slip op. at 61

  Patent outcomesUS 6,202,395 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,202,395
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Limestone Memory Systems LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jun 2, 2016 · IPR2016-00094 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Micron’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because the petition insufficiently showed the claim 6 column redundancy decoder limitation and a reasoned basis to combine.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, specifically, all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “not shown sufficiently that the combination of McAdams and Minami teaches “a column redundancy decoder activating said redundant column selection line in response to said first column address when said second word line is activated” (“the column redundancy decoder limitation”), as recited in claim 6. Dec. 13. We further determined that Petitioner did not provide sufficiently an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 16.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “not shown sufficiently that the combination of McAdams and Minami teaches “a column redundancy decoder activating said redundant column selection line in response to said first column address when said second word line is activated” (“the column redundancy decoder limitation”), as recited in claim 6. Dec. 13. We further determined that Petitioner did not provide sufficiently an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 16.” slip op. at 2

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 5,894,441
• LG Electronics, Inc. / Toshiba Corp. et al. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01400 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 5 of the ’469 patent and claim 3 of the ’121 patent are unpatentable under §103; the other challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. We agree with Petitioner that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) applies only to civil actions for patent infringement, and not to an administrative proceeding, including an ITC investigation. See Amkor, Paper 98, slip op. at 6–18; Brinkman Corp. v. A&J Mfg., LLC, Case IPR2015-00056, slip op. at 7–8 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2015) (Paper 10). Although Amkor and Brinkman Corp. are not precedential, we find them instructive and directly on point. In Amkor, the Board determined that “had Congress intended for arbitration, ITC, or other non-judicial proceedings to trigger the time bar of section 315(b), it would have used more encompassing language than ‘Patent Owner’s Action’ and ‘served with a complaint,’ which are harmonious with a civil action.” Amkor, Paper 98, slip op. at 11 (determining that the time bar is limited to being triggered by the service of a complaint in a civil action). A similar decision by the Board in Brinkman Corp. reaches the same result and specifically is directed toward an ITC investigation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that Petitioner is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).” slip op. at 18

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

    “Petitioner further contends that WINS discloses that NetBIOS is incorporated into the WINS system and expressly discloses that WINS should be combined with NetBIOS. Id. at 37–38 (citing 198 Ex. 1002 ¶ 81; Ex. 1003, 65). Accordingly, Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known about and been motivated to combine the references. Id. Petitioner further contends that a person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated similarly to combine WINS and NetBIOS with Pinard because Pinard discloses a telephony application with a graphical user interface that allows a user to establish and manage telephone calls. Id. at 38–39. Petitioner specifically argues that Pinard references Windows 3.1 and WINS references Windows 3.11 and Windows NT, and, therefore, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have known how to adapt the graphical user interfaces in Pinard to the system in WINS. Id. We are persuaded that Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows NT utilizes NetBIOS features for name resolution, as disclosed by WINS, and Pinard’s program is compatible with a Windows operating system, and, therefore, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have readily combined the disclosures of WINS, NetBIOS, and Pinard.” slip op. at 30

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable

    “fail to determine whether a computer or process is connected to the computer network. PO Resp. 48–51. In view of our construction of this claim limitation, we agree with Patent Owner. WINS discloses that once a computer is registered with the WINS server (which is a NetBIOS Name Server (NBNS)) as active and on-line, the WINS server maintains a database of names and addresses as active and on-line by (1) releasing names once a computer is shut down properly, and (2) requiring a renewal time period in which a computer must reregister. Ex. 1003, 62–63, 68–69. WINS discloses that in response to User Datagram Protocol (UDP) name queries, “a mapping in the database does not ensure that the related device is currently running.” Id. at 68. WINS further explains that a “local WINS database should periodically be cleared of released entries and old entries that were registered at another WINS server but did not get removed from this WINS database for some reason.” Id. at 150. In other words, WINS discloses that the WINS database may include entries of computers that are not currently connected to the WINS network. Accordingly, a query to as to whether a second process “is connected to the computer network” in WINS will not determine whether the second process is connected to the WINS network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server. As discussed above in our claim construction analysis above (see Section I.E.1), a query as to whether a process “is connected to a computer network” or has an “on-line” status asks “whether the device ‘is’ connected, not whether it was connected or whether it is still registered as being connected even if that registration information is no longer accurate. It is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language . . . to say that it is satisfied by a query that asks only for registration information, regardless of its current accuracy.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360. WINS discloses that the WINS server has information that a process “was” connected to the computer network, and that information may no longer be accurate. See Ex. 1003, 68, 150. As such, we determine that WINS does not disclose the claimed “is connected to the computer network,” “on-line status,” or “is accessible,” as construed herein. Similarly, NetBIOS discloses a registration process for resources or nodes to receive a unique name by registering a name. Ex. 1004, 379. During a name query (discovery), a datagram is sent requesting the name and address of another resource. Id. at 396. The NBNS maintains a database of resource names through explicit name deletion, where the node specifies a deletion function and implicit name deletion, which occurs when a node ceases operation. Id. at 379. NetBIOS explains that implicit name deletion “is a frequent occurrence.” Id. Implicit name deletion is managed by assigning nodes a specified lifetime for registered names, where a name is silently released if a node fails to refresh the registered name before the lifetime expires. Id. NetBIOS further discloses a mechanism where the NBNS may correct the information stored after an incorrect response is provided to a requesting node. See id. at 409. However, similar to WINS, NetBIOS discloses that the information stored by the NBNS may be incorrect, and, therefore, will not determine whether a second process is connected to the computer network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server. Therefore, NetBIOS also does not disclose the claimed “is connected to the computer network,” “on-line status,” or “is accessible.”” slip op. at 23

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

    “In Straight Path, the Federal Circuit held that the claim language “is connected to the computer network” has a facially clear meaning, that “the query transmitted to the server seeks to determine whether the second unit is connected at that time, i.e., connected at the time that the query is sent.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1360.11 The Federal Circuit held that the query 11 Petitioner argues that the relevant specifications do not include an embodiment that “guarantee[s]” that an entry in its database is online, and, therefore, Patent Owner’s argument does not distinguish the ’704, ’469, and ’121 patents over the prior art. Addʼl Br. 6‒7. However, such an argument goes towards whether there is written description and enablement support for the claims. In Straight Path, the Federal Circuit did not offer a view as to the sufficiency of the written description or enablement based on the asks “whether the device ‘is’ connected, not whether it was connected or whether it is still registered as being connected even if that registration information is no longer accurate.” Id. The Federal Circuit further explained that “[i]t is not a reasonable interpretation of the claim language . . . to say that it is satisfied by a query that asks only for registration information, regardless of its current accuracy.” Id. The Federal Circuit explained, “[w]hen claim language has as plain a meaning on an issue as the language does here, leaving no genuine uncertainties on interpretive questions relevant to the case, it is particularly difficult to conclude that the specification reasonably supports a different meaning. The specification plays a more limited role than in the common situation where claim terms are uncertain in meaning in relevant respects.” Id. at 1361. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit construed the limitation “is connected to the computer network” as “is connected to the computer network at the time that the query is transmitted to the server.” Id. at 1363. Petitioner and Patent Owner argue that the limitations “on-line status” and “is accessible” have the same meaning as “is connected to the computer network.” See 209 Pet. 35–36; 209 PO Resp. 36‒48; 198 Pet. 35–36; 198 PO Resp. 35‒46; 196 Pet. 29; 196 PO Resp. 38‒51. Similar to “is connected to a computer network,” the “on-line status” and “is accessible” of the second process are recited in the present tense, and therefore must be claim construction provided by the Federal Circuit because “written-description and enablement challenges were not, and could not have been, part of the inter partes review.” Straight Path, 806 F.3d at 1363. We similarly do not determine whether this claim limitation is supported by the specifications of the ʼ704, ʼ469, and ʼ121 patents. determined at the time of the querying whether the second process “is accessible” or selecting of the process having an “on-line status.” Therefore, we construe “on-line status” and “is accessible” as having the same meaning as “is connected to the computer network.”” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 6,009,469 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,009,469

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.