• Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 14, 2023 · IPR2021-01367 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over the Deese-based grounds; the Board did not reach the Lys- and Worley-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “February 25, 2004, would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of relevant experience in the field of design and/or development of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and circuits in the context of lighting control systems.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 24). For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 11. Upon review of the prior art of record and Petitioner’s arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Final Written Decision, as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’551 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 6

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we construed “driver” to mean “a program, circuitry, or device used to power other programs, circuits, or devices.” Inst. Dec. 14. We also asked the parties to address whether the term “mounted,” as used in independent claims 1 and 5, permits indirect contact between the various components and the reflective substrate. Id. at 32 n.11. Patent Owner contends the Board’s adopted construction of “driver” is too broad, but because the arguments presented in Patent Owner’s Response to do not turn on a narrower construction of “driver,” it does not propose an alternate construction of the claim term. PO Resp. 12–13. Patent Owner does not address the scope of the term “mounted” in its Response or ask that any other claim terms be expressly construed. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we adopt our previous construction of “driver” and determine that we need not construe any additional claim terms for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)). We note, however, that we do provide” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Kuo discloses a “high efficiency light” that uses LEDs to emit light, as well as different lenses to amplify the intensity of the light emitted from the LEDs. See Ex. 1013, 1:6–9. Although Kuo focuses primarily on using its light as a traffic signal, Kuo is not limited to this embodiment and broadly claims “[a] high efficiency light.” Id. at 3:14–4:23 (Compare claim 1 directed to “[a] high efficiency light,” with claim 2 directed to use of the light of claim 1 “as a signal light”). Thus, we find that Kuo is in the same field of endeavor as the ’551 patent, i.e., LED lighting systems. that Kuo meets the “reasonably pertinent” prong of the analogous art test. KSR instructs that “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill in the art often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 402 (2007). Given this instruction, the Federal Circuit has explained that when considering whether prior art is reasonably pertinent we must look beyond the primary problem the inventor was seeking to solve. See Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining that in analyzing whether the prior art is reasonably pertinent we must construe the scope of analogous art “broadly”); see also Donner Tech., LLC. V. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the “reasonably pertinent” analysis must look to all of the problems to which the claimed invention relates, and must not be analyzed so narrowly as to effectively collapse the “field-of-endeavor and reasonablepertinence inquiries”). Here, although the ’551 patent is primarily focused on ways to efficiently drive LEDs using AC power, the ’551 patent is also concerned with methods of assembling an LED lighting system, including the use of: an insulating substrate, a heat sink, a reflective material on which to mount the LEDs, a lens for directing light, and a light changing or enhancing substance(s). Ex. 1001, 5:6–31, code (54) (noting that the ’551 patent is directed to both AC LED drive methods and an apparatus). Kuo expressly discloses the design of a housing that uses a lens and a light reflecting surface to maximize the light obtained from LEDs. These disclosures are reasonably pertinent to at least one problem the ’551 patent was intended to solve, e.g., what techniques and materials should be used to construct an analogous art to the ’551 patent under both prongs of the analogous art test.” slip op. at 15

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

    “5. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, and upon review of the record as a whole, we determine that Petitioner persuasively identifies where Deese and Kuo teach or suggest every limitation of independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’551 patent. Petitioner also provides a reasoned explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Deese and Kuo to arrive at the subject matter of claims 1 and 5 with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, Petitioner demonstrates by a” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,154,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,154,551
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Ideahub Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · PGR2022-00044 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted post-grant review of claims 1–13 on all grounds, finding it more likely than not that at least claim 1 lacks written-description support.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 324(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” After considering the Petition, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Sur-reply, as well as all supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner satisfies its burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) to show that it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’274 patent is unpatentable. Therefore, we authorize a post-grant review to be instituted as to all grounds and all challenged claims. 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(a) (“When instituting post-grant review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2

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

    “Id. at 7:24–8:4 (emphasis added). The ’928 application repeatedly makes clear that directionality and intra mode are related, but distinct concepts. They are not interchangeable as Patent Owner argues. On this point, we find Dr. Freedman’s explanation in paragraph 85 of his Declaration on the relationship between “intra mode” and “directionality” to be particularly well-reasoned and persuasive. As Dr. Freedman explains, [t]hroughout the ’928 application, the text uses the term “directionality” to refer to characteristics of neighboring blocks, whereas the term “intra mode” is used when referring to the current block. For example, the ’928 application describes that “directionality” of neighboring blocks is “estimated from the neighboring blocks” that “have already been reconstructed” while the “intra mode” is selected for the current block for purposes of reconstructing that current block. This is likely because the neighboring blocks “have already been reconstructed” and thus, the intra mode number that was used in reconstructing those blocks is no longer pertinent. Instead, what is pertinent in the ’928 application’s method is the directionality characteristic of those neighboring blocks. Phrased differently, in the ’928 application, directionality is a concept that is evaluated after performance of intra prediction (i.e., after reconstruction), whereas the intra mode or number is a concept used during performance of intra prediction. They are not equivalent in the context of the ’928 application. Ex. 1005 ¶ 86 (citing Ex. 1028, 11:14–12:4, 25:10–15; Ex. 1036, 706 (“The DCT coefficients gathered from the MPEG 2 process are used to estimate the directional features in a picture. The estimated directional features are then used to compute the intra prediction modes in the H.264 encoding stage.”)).8 Thus, we are persuaded by Dr. Freedman’s testimony, supported by Kalva, that these terms are not synonymous, as is Patent Owner’s and its expert’s position.” slip op. at 31

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

    “Patent Owner argues that HEVC265 is not prior art because it was published in 2013. Prelim. Resp. 24. Insofar as we determine that the ’928 application does not provide sufficient written description support for at least claim 1, and insofar as no other patent or application in the priority chain of the ’274 patent was filed before 2013 (see Pet. 19), Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing as to this claim. As we preliminarily conclude that Petitioner demonstrates that it is more likely than not to prevail on its challenge to independent claim 1 based on lack of written description support, we institute review on all challenged claims on all grounds set forth in the Petition, including Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness challenges to claims 1–4 and 6 applying HEVC265. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1354; PGS, 891 F.3d at 1360.” slip op. at 38

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

    “F. Anticipation and Obviousness Challenges Based on HEVC265 Petitioner contends that claims 1–4 and 6 are anticipated by, or alternatively, rendered obvious in view of HEVC265. Pet. 49–52. Patent Owner argues that HEVC265 is not prior art because it was published in 2013. Prelim. Resp. 24. Insofar as we determine that the ’928 application does not provide sufficient written description support for at least claim 1, and insofar as no other patent or application in the priority chain of the ’274 patent was filed before 2013 (see Pet. 19), Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing as to this claim. As we preliminarily conclude that Petitioner demonstrates that it is more likely than not to prevail on its challenge to independent claim 1 based on lack of written description support, we institute review on all challenged claims on all grounds set forth in the Petition, including Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness challenges to claims 1–4 and 6 applying HEVC265. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1354; PGS, 891 F.3d at 1360.” slip op. at 38

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,122,274
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2023 · IPR2020-00052 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1 and 17–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Vehviläinen; the Board did not reach anticipation.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Federal Circuit. Netflix, 2022 WL 2298983 at *1. The Federal Circuit vacated our Decision as to claims 1 and 17–19 and remanded for further consideration of whether claims 1 and 17–19 are unpatentable in light of the court’s construction of a disputed limitation recited in claim 1. Id. at *7. The Federal Circuit affirmed our Decision as to claims 2 and 4, and thus, those claims are not before us on remand. Id. The parties proposed filing a joint brief, with six pages per side, limited to identifying the issues that remain on remand and identifying relevant portions of the existing record, without submitting any new evidence or arguments, and we authorized the joint brief. Paper 87; Ex. 1028. Accordingly, the parties filed a joint brief. Paper 88 (“Joint Brief”). For the reasons discussed below, we conclude, in view of the Federal Circuit’s claim construction and the complete record before us, that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1 and 17–19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3

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

    “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Neither of those exceptions apply here, and for the reasons below, we disagree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of “selecting a filter to apply” excludes determining whether or not to apply a given filter. We begin with the claim language at issue. TQ Delta, LLC v. DISH Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019). When considering the language of the claim overall, the usage of “selecting a filter” in the claims does not in any way indicate whether the filter has to be selected from among multiple filters. Claim 1 recites “selecting a filter to apply to determined level of detail.” Ex. 1001, 13:20–22 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that “the claim language confirms that ‘selecting a filter’ means choosing from a number of alternative filters, not merely deciding whether or not to apply a filter,” (PO Resp. 34), but we see nothing in the claim language that suggests such a requirement. Patent Owner also points us to claim 19, arguing that selecting is not merely deciding whether to apply a filter, “since that determination is already made in [c]laim 19 by virtue of the initial sub-step of ‘exceed[ing] the threshold.’” Id. Again, we see nothing in claim 19 that suggests the determination of the threshold being exceeded requires a specific manner of filter selection. Instead, similar to claim 1, claim 19 recites: “when the level of detail exceeds the threshold, selecting a filter to apply to predetermined pixels.” Ex. 1001, 16:8–9. Thus, we are not persuaded that the claim language necessarily requires selecting a filter from among multiple filters. slip op. at 14

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

    “because Vehviläinen performs additional analysis before selecting a moderate or high activity filter, it does not teach selecting from among multiple filters. As discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s claim interpretation, and even if we did, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have easily modified Vehviläinen’s filter selection to use a single area, e.g., the smooth area of Figure 5A, and a decision branch based on the level of detail for that single area. Vehviläinen discloses that “increasing the amount of selection branches makes the system more adaptive to the nature of the blocking effect but also increases control logic.” Ex. 1004, 8:15–27. Vehviläinen states that “[a] good embodiment,” but of course, “the invention can be utilized with less than three branches.” Id. at 8:18–21. Dr. Bove testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to reduce complexity and the required control logic by using fewer branches, as taught by Vehviläinen, including for example just one branch, particularly for applications running on performance-constrained platforms such as low-end computer processors or mobile platforms, which often had constraints on thermal dissipation, power consumption, and cost.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 120 (citing Ex. 1004, 11:7–22). He further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to determine the level of detail for just the ‘smooth’ area and then select the smooth filter, if the area is smooth, or the high-activity filter otherwise.” Id. Dr. Bove illustrates that modification with the following pseudocode: if ( IsSmooth (Figure_5A) == TRUE) { Select (SmoothFilter); } else { Select (HighActivityFilter); } Id. He further testifies that such a modification would have been obvious and well within [a person of ordinary skill in the art’s] level of skill, and [such a person] would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that [the] modification involves a simple reordering of elements taught by Vehviläinen, the fact that Vehviläinen expressly teaches the have had with these basic filtering and thresholding techniques. Id. On this aspect, we credit Dr. Bove’s testimony because it is based on the express teachings of Vehviläinen and addresses a straightforward modification in view of those teachings.” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “a) Patent Owner Has Not Established that It is Entitled to a Presumption of Nexus We determine that Patent Owner has not demonstrated a nexus between the evidence presented and claims 1 and 17–19. Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence are directed broadly to the DivX6 codec’s deblocking scheme and not specifically to the deblocking aspects covered by the challenged claims. We agree with Petitioner that the claimed features constitute only a small part of the commercial product and the two are far from being coextensive. See Pet. Reply 31 (citing Ex. 1017, 133:10–24; Ex. 1018, 34:4–35:1). As Dr. Bajaj explained, the “DivX [codec] included a lot of things” other than deblocking, and the DivX documentation details “only a fraction of the things that were there in the codec.” Ex. 1017, 133:10–24.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 8,139,651 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,139,651
• Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2023 · IPR2021-01368 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Grajcar and Walter; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) . . . would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of relevant experience in the field of design and/or development of LEDs and circuits in the context of lighting control systems. An increase in experience could compensate for less education. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 35). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. 32 (referring to, but not disputing, Petitioner’s proposed level of skill). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’783 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 5

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

    “1. “connection lead” Petitioner proposes only one construction, for the term “connection lead” in claim 17. Pet. 13–14. As Patent Owner disclaimed claim 17 and this term does not appear in the remaining challenged claims, we do not need to construe it. Ex. 2003.” slip op. at 6

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

    “2. “a switch configured to enable user selection” Prior to Institution, Patent Owner asserted that Petitioner applied an incomplete claim construction of the phrase “a switch configured to enable user selection.” Prelim. Resp. 19–22. Patent Owner contended that the switch must be “physical” and that a user must “be able to directly select an outcome.” Id. at 19. Our Institution Decision preliminarily construed “a switch configured to enable user selection of the different color temperatures of light” to permit a user to select the color temperature through direct or indirect use of the switch. Dec. 21. Patent Owner no longer disputes the construction of this term and applies our preliminary construction in its Response. PO Resp. 6. Having reviewed the complete record developed during trial, we determine that the record supports maintaining our preliminary construction of this term for the reasons set forth in our Institution Decision.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We view Petitioner’s combination to be sufficiently clear, setting forth sufficiently “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner explains that “Grajcar discloses a switch (switch 2115) configured to enable user selection” and that “[t]o the extent [Patent Owner] argues that switch 2115 does not explicitly show ‘a switch configured to enable user selection,’ it would have been obvious to modify Grajcar by adding a switch that allows user input, as taught by Walter.” Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 107, 102–112, 192–195, Fig. 21; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 72–73). This combination would have involved “integrat[ing] the LED circuits and switch of [Grajcar] Figure 21 with the LED bulb disclosed in Walter.” Id. at 21 (emphasis added). That is, the proposed combination simply aims to use Grajcar’s LED circuit in Walter’s bulb, so that Walter’s switch may actuate Grajcar’s LED circuit. See id. at 21–23, 27. Petitioner confirmed this position at the oral hearing, explaining, “so the proposed combination, looking again at Slide 13, it’s taking all of the circuits in [Grajcar] Figure 21 and putting them into the bulb of [Walter] Figure 2 where any user selection of color temperature is done using [Walter’s] Switch 170.” Tr. 11:20–23. Not only is Petitioner’s proposed combination sufficiently clear, but by arguing that Petitioner provides no “explanation of how the resulting combination would operate” or “what specific elements of Walter would be incorporated into Grajcar,” Patent Owner essentially attacks the Petition for not explaining how to bodily incorporate Grajcar into Walter. But “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Patent Owner’s bodily incorporation argument fails to undermine Petitioner’s persuasive showing. In any event, Petitioner contends, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that “[i]t would have been well within the skill of a POSITA to implement Grajcar’s LED light with the user interface of Walter,” as “[t]he circuits described in Grajcar and claimed in claim 1 are extremely basic.” Pet. 23; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 66 (Dr. Lebby testifying the same).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,757,783 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,757,783
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Divx, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 20, 2023 · IPR2021-01476 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Biderman and Gigliotti; the Board did not reach the alternative Sood-based ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related scientific field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with streaming media applications or related fields (e.g., network applications),” where a “lack of experience can be remedied with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, a lack of education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 4-5 years).” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–51). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. consistent with the ’987 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level in deciding the patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 8

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

    “construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). The claim construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, we take into account the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–17. Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these terms need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). construction. Pet. 10; see generally PO Resp. We need not expressly construe any claim terms to decide the issues in this proceeding.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “artisan would have had reason to combine the teachings of Biderman and Gigliotti in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 23–28. Petitioner persuasively argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Biderman’s teachings of switching from one stream to another with Gigliotti’s teachings of ensuring the buffer is sufficiently full before switching because a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that, without a technique for measuring the amount of content in the buffer, Biderman’s client might switch to the second playlist content without sufficient content stored in the buffer, which might result in an Ex. 1019 ¶ 11; Ex. 1020 ¶ 13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122–125). Petitioner’s contention that there would be a reasonable likelihood of success in doing so is supported by Dr. Reddy’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–126 (citing Ex. 1009, 5).” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 10,326,987 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,326,987
• Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 18, 2023 · IPR2021-01370 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–17 are unpatentable: claims 9–11, 13, 15, and 17 are anticipated by Dowling; claims 9–15 and 17 are obvious over Dowling, Mueller, and Okuno; claims 9–11, 15, and 16 are anticipated by Ter Weeme.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Given the breadth of the claims and specification, as well as Patent Owner’s implicit prosecution acknowledgement, we find the intrinsic evidence dispositive in this case of the meaning of “disconnected” as encompassing an electrical disconnection sufficient to turn the LED circuit off, including an electronic switch like a transistor to perform the electrical disconnection.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner

    “Turning to our analysis, we start by addressing the interpretation of claim 9’s preamble, “[a]n LED lighting system.” Both parties brief the meaning of this preamble, but neither party addresses the threshold issue of whether the preamble is limiting. We note that “[g]enerally, a preamble is not limiting.” Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015). However, among other exceptions to this general rule, our reviewing court has “repeatedly held a preamble limiting when it serves as antecedent basis for a term appearing in the body of a claim.” In re Fought, 941 F.3d 1175, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). The body of claim 9 refers back to the preamble by reciting, “wherein the LED lighting system is driven with the AC voltage source.” Ex. 1001, 20:25–26. As such, the body of the claim relies on the preamble for antecedent basis support, and we determine that the preamble of claim 9 is limiting.” slip op. at 47

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

    “Petitioner’s arguments are more persuasive. Dowling discloses mode switch 190, which, among other modes, can “strobe, that is, flash on and off,” LEDs in different colors. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47, 62. Dr. Neikirk testifies that this strobing action connects a red LED circuit to the AC voltage source, then disconnects it from the AC voltage source and connects a blue LED circuit to the AC voltage source. Ex. 1002 ¶ 39. Dr. Neikirk further testifies that Dowling discloses connecting and disconnecting the LED circuits to the AC voltage source via a controller that utilizes PWM to turn those circuits on and off. Ex. 1026 ¶ 27 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 1, 8, ¶¶ 38–43, 63). He further states, “[a]s I confirmed at my deposition, when a PWM transistor is off, it is off.” Id. (citing Ex. 2006, 33:17–25). Under the correct construction of “disconnected” set forth above, we find this evidence persuasive to show that Dowling discloses this limitation. Significantly, Dowling discloses, and Patent Owner does not dispute,8 that LEDs of 8 For the first time in the hearing, Patent Owner raised a new argument that “Petitioner [does not] point to any disclosure in Dowling that actually says that a mode turns an LED on and turns another LED circuit off.” E.g., Tr. 79:3–9. Relatedly, Patent Owner argues that Dowling’s “strobe mode” does not “cause[] some LED circuits to be connected and other LED circuits to be disconnected.” Id. at 80:21–81:2; see also id. at 81:3–83:12 (colloquy with counsel regarding the absence of a “strobe mode” discussion in the PO Response). These arguments came too late, and we do not consider them. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Unless it different colors “flash on and off” in response to user selection of the mode switch, thereby teaching the claimed “second switch that allows the first LED circuit to be disconnected from the AC voltage source and a second LED circuit to be connected to an AC voltage source.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 47, 62.” slip op. at 23

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the combination of Dowling, Mueller, and Okuno would have rendered claim 14 obvious. We find persuasive Petitioner’s contention that it would have been obvious to implement the power conversion circuitry disclosed by Dowling for light bulb 180 using at least one transformer as taught by Mueller and Okuno. Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 85). We agree that Dowling already discloses power conversion circuitry for a light bulb, which converts a 120 volts AC input to a DC voltage of 5 or 12 volts. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 58; Ex. 1002 ¶ 62). Specifically, Dowling describes a connection 70 for its light bulb that “may include a converter to convert received power to power that is useful,” for example, “an AC to DC converter to convert one-hundred twenty Volts at sixty Hertz into a direct current at a voltage of, for example, five Volts or twelve Volts.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 58; see also id. ¶ 63 (“A power converter can be used within the light bulb 180 to convert the received power . . . in the form of a variable amplitude AC signal . . . to the requisite power for the control circuitry and the LEDs . . . .”). We also credit Dr. Neikirk’s testimony that “a POSITA would have been motivated to investigate the known implementation details in the art regarding how to convert the AC power from a much higher voltage down to an appropriate direct current at a much lower voltage for driving LEDs, and been led to the teachings of Mueller and Okuno.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 62, quoted in Pet. 30. We further credit Dr. Neikirk’s testimony that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to use a transformer and bridge rectifier as taught by Mueller and Okuno, and recognized the suitability of those components, for Dowling’s power conversion circuity in an Edison-mount lightbulb.” Id. ¶ 64 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 8, ¶¶ 62–63), quoted in Pet. 30. In other words, based on Dowling’s teachings of using power conversion circuitry in its light bulb, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Okuno and recognized the suitability of a transformer for use as Dowling’s power conversion circuitry. See id. ¶¶ 62–64.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 10,349,479 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,349,479
• Honeywell International, Inc. / Sierra Wireless, Inc. et al. v. 3g Licensing SAAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2021-01141 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 34–40 are unpatentable as obvious over Samsung and C.S0002-0, or Samsung, Airvana, and C.S0002-0; the Board did not reach the Chung ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “’653 patent are not supported by Korean App. No. 6839. Claim limitation 34(d) requires that “a bit is sent on a reverse packet data control channel to indicate whether the mobile station has enough power and data to increase its data transmission rate on a reverse packet data channel,” and claim 37 recites a similar limitation. Ex. 1001, 20:19–22 (emphasis added), 20:44– 48. The ’653 patent discloses an MS_IAB bit that indicates whether the mobile station has enough power and data to increase its data transmission rate on a reverse packet data channel. Id. at 14:3–20. More specifically, the ’653 patent states that the MS_IAB value is set to “increase” when “transmission power margin (i.e., remaining transmission power) is above a certain level,” the “number of bits in the transmission buffer is above a certain level,” and “the data rate of the current transfer . . . is below a maximum data rate . . . set by the system.” Id. at 14:10–19. Thus, the ’653 patent’s disclosure of an MS_IAB supports limitation 34(d). This disclosure, however, does not appear in Korean App. No. 6839, and Patent Owner does not contend otherwise. See Pet. 8–9; Pet. Reply 3–4; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–119; PO Resp. 31–46; PO Sur-reply 2–22. Nor is there any similar disclosure in Korean App. No. 6839 of a value that indicates whether the mobile station has enough power and data to increase its data transmission rate, whether referred to as an “MS_IAB” or otherwise. We also find that the RRI in Korean App. No. 6839 does not provide support for claim limitation 34(d). The relevant portion of the ’6839 application states that the base station determines “information on the increase and decrease of transmission data rate (Reverse Activity Bit, RAB) for each mobile station” and sends the RAB to the mobile station. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 6–7. It then states that “the mobile station that has received its RAB information changes the transmission data rate one step at a time according to the RAB command and transmits it, and informs a base station of its transmission data rate through an RRI (Reverse Rate Indicator).” Id. ¶ 7 (emphasis added). The ’6839 application includes a comparable disclosure in two additional locations, paragraphs 22 and 44. Id. ¶¶ 22 (“the mobile station that has received its RAB information changes the transmission data rate one step at a time according to the RAB command and transmits it, and informs the base station of its transmission data rate through an RRI (Reverse Rate Indicator)”), 44 (same). These disclosures merely state that the RRI informs the base station of the mobile station’s transmission rate; they do not disclose that the RRI includes a bit that “indicate[s] whether the mobile station has enough power and data to increase its data transmission rate,” as the claims require.” slip op. at 27

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

    “4. Motivation to Combine Samsung and Airvana Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Samsung and Airvana because “Samsung incorporates Airvana by reference.” Pet. 39. “Specifically,” Petitioner asserts, “Samsung expressly references the disclosures of Airvana and then, importantly, makes a proposal that builds upon and improves Airvana’s ideas.” Id. Petitioner also argues that, even if Samsung and Airvana are “treated as entirely separate references,” one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine them because “Samsung specifically references and discusses the content of ‘Airvana’s proposal[] for 1xEV-DV’ in the context of reverse link rate control.” Pet. 40. “Moreover,” Petitioner contends, “Samsung was a contribution to the same 3GPP2 TSG working group (3GPP2 TSG-C WG5) as Airvana, so Samsung’s reference to ‘Airvana’s proposal[]’ for a dedicated control scheme for reverse link data rates could not be misunderstood.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 4; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 161–163). Petitioner further argues that Samsung “states that its proposal for an increase availability bit (‘IAB’) from the mobile station ‘can be applicable for both common and dedicated control scheme[s] for reverse link data rate,” and that “Airvana proposes such a control scheme.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 5). Patent Owner does not argue a lack of motivation to combine Samsung and Airvana. See PO Resp. Based on the full trial record, including the testimony of Mr. Proctor, Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Samsung and Airvana based on Samsung’s incorporation by reference of Airvana’s proposal, the fact that Samsung was a contribution to the same 3GPP2 TSG working group as Airvana, and Samsung’s statement that its proposal for an IAB can be applicable to a control scheme such as that proposed by Airvana. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 161–163; Ex. 1004, 4.” slip op. at 45

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that C.S0002-0 teaches mapping control messages, such as power control messages having potential values of +1, -1, and 0, with the bit not being present meaning a value of 0, the bit being present and set to 1 meaning a value of -1, and the bit being present and set to 0 meaning a value of +1. Pet. 48–49; Ex. 1006, 3-8, 3-21. We also agree that this information is disclosed by Figure 3.1.3.1.1.1-4 of CS.S0002-0. Pet. 49; Ex. 1006, 3-8. Additionally, as discussed in Section II.E.5 above, we find that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have been obvious to use C.S0002-0’s signal point mapping technique with Samsung’s (or Samsung/Airvana’s) messages with Samsung’s signaling by the base station to indicate whether the mobile station should increase, decrease, or maintain its current data transmission data rate. We disagree with Patent Owner’s contentions for the reasons discussed above in Section II.E.5. Consequently, based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Samsung (or Samsung/Airvana) and C.S0002-0 teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 57

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Our conclusion is supported by the testimony of Mr. Proctor. Mr. Proctor testifies that “RRIs were adopted as part of prior art specifications, including for the [3GPP] cdma2000 High Rate Packet Data Air Interface at least as early as October 2000.” Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 6, 8 (citing Ex. 1018). As Mr. Proctor explains, the cdma2000 specification describes a “Reverse Rate Indicator Channel . . . used by the access terminal to indicate the data rate at which the Data Channel is transmitted.” Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 8–9 (citing Ex. 1018, 9-35). Mr. Proctor also testifies that “the Reverse Rate Indicator (RRI) symbols sent on the RRI Channel by the mobile station (access terminal) to the base station ‘indicate the data rate at which the Data Channel is transmitted.’” Id. ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1018, 9-35). “In other words,” Mr. Proctor explains, “the mobile station sends RRI symbols to tell the base station the data rate at which the mobile is transmitting information on the reverse link’s Data Channel (the data Channel of the Reverse Traffic Channel), as the RRI Channel is used to indicate the data rate of the Data Channel being transmitted on the Reverse Traffic Channel.” Id. (citing Ex. 1018, 9-26, 9- 33, 9-34, 9-35, 9-39). Additionally, Mr. Proctor testifies that “RRIs are only briefly mentioned three times, in paragraphs 7, 22, and 48” in the ’6839 application, and “the prior art 3GPP specification has the same basic disclosure of RRIs as the ’6839 application: using the RRI to confirm to the base station what data rate the mobile station/access terminal is using.” Id. ¶¶ 7, 11 (citing Ex. 1018, 9-35; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 7, 22, 48). “Indeed,” Mr. Proctor states, “the ’6839 application references the same data rates between 9.6 and 153.6 kbps on the reverse link that are referenced in the prior art [3GPP] specification.” Id. ¶ 11 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 16; Ex. 1018, 9-33, 9-35). We find this testimony to be credible because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’6839 application and the 3GPP specification (Exhibit 1018). We also rely on and find credible Mr. Proctor’s testimony that “neither the ’6839 application nor the prior art High Rate Packet Data Specification disclose” an “RRI or other signal that comprises a bit that the mobile station sends to indicate it has sufficient power and data for a subsequent increase.” Ex. 1019 ¶ 12. As Mr. Proctor explains, “the only disclosure relating to the RRI within the ’6839 application” is the “single sentence[] referring to the RRI as informing the base station of its transmission data rate,” which is “repeated three times in separate paragraphs.” Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 7, 22, 48). We agree with and find credible Mr. Proctor’s testimony that this sentence “provides no additional teachings beyond what a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have known to be conventional (e.g., beyond what was known in the current HDR system available at that time, and referenced within the ’6839 application),” id. ¶ 12, and that “[n]o person of skill in the art reviewing” this disclosure would understand it to disclose “a bit that indicates whether the mobile station has power and data to accept an increase in its data rate,” id. ¶ 13.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,215,653 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,215,653
• Slack Technologies, LLC v. Ginegar LLCAdverse judgment
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2022-00542 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Adverse judgment

  The Board entered adverse judgment against Ginegar on claims 1–16 of the ’865 patent after its request and disclaimer; those claims are cancelled.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “A party may request adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Having reviewed Patent Owner’s requests and the cited decisions and exhibit, we determine that entry of judgment against the Patent Owner with respect to claims 1 and 2 of the ’521 patent and claims 1–16 of the ’865 patent is appropriate. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that judgment is entered under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) against Patent Owner with respect to claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 9,367,521 B2 and claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,760,865 B2; FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 9,367,521 B2 and claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,760,865 B2 are cancelled; and FURTHER ORDERED that this Order constitutes a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) for each of the captioned proceedings.” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 9,760,865
• Slack Technologies, LLC v. Ginegar LLCAdverse judgment
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2022-00541 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Adverse judgment

  The Board entered adverse judgment against Patent Owner and cancelled claims 1–2 of the ’521 patent and claims 1–16 of the ’865 patent.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “A party may request adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Having reviewed Patent Owner’s requests and the cited decisions and exhibit, we determine that entry of judgment against the Patent Owner with respect to claims 1 and 2 of the ’521 patent and claims 1–16 of the ’865 patent is appropriate.” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 9,367,521
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Staton Techiya, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 9, 2023 · IPR2022-01106 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 11, 12, 15, and 16, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on all asserted grounds and declining discretionary denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “litigation.” Interim Fintiv Guidance at 4. “Where the information presented at the institution stage is merely sufficient to meet the statutory institution threshold, the PTAB has the authority, where warranted, to exercise discretion to deny institution in view of the other Fintiv factors.” Id. “In contrast, where the PTAB determines that the information presented at the institution stage presents a compelling unpatentability challenge, that determination alone demonstrates that the PTAB should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” Id. at 4–5. As discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability of at least independent claim 1. Beyond that, given the facts relating to the other Fintiv factors in this case, we need not determine at this time whether Petitioner’s showing is “compelling” in order to decide whether to exercise our discretion to deny institution in this proceeding. Therefore, we treat this factor as neutral in our analysis. As noted above, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Fintiv Order at 6. Weighing all of the factors, we are not persuaded that the interests of efficiency and integrity of the system would be best served by invoking 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of a potentially meritorious Petition. Based on the record before us, we determine the facts of this case do not warrant discretionary denial.” slip op. at 13

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2021) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). 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). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Patent Owner has not persuaded us that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution of trial. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Patent Owner proposes constructions for two terms: “trigger event” and “sound signature.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Patent Owner argues that “trigger event” should be construed as “an event that initiates the collection of audio content or the measurement of sound pressure level.” Id. at 23. Patent Owner argues that its construction “captures the definition provided in the specification,” which is “an event that initiates the collection of audio content or the measurement of sound pressure level that is sent to server 130 (or an associated database for storage).” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:60–63). Patent Owner argues that the term “sound signature” should be construed as “a specific sound event” based on the ’259 patent specification’s statement that “[a] sound signature is a specific sound event such as a car horn, a siren, [or] a whistle.” Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:43–44). Based on the present record, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of the terms “trigger event” or “sound signature” for purposes of institution. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 14

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

    “sufficient showing as to claim 5 for purposes of institution. Specifically, we determine that Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence at this stage of the proceeding that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add Jones’s volume level switch for recording sounds over a given threshold in order to conserve power, and that doing so would have been within the level of ordinary skill. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 164–167. Although the volume level switch may have interfered with the system’s ability to detect transitory sounds, Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence that this was a tradeoff that would have been appreciated by one of ordinary skill, and would have been acceptable in certain circumstances, such as where battery life was an important consideration. Id. ¶ 168. We also disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that “[t]he system of Couper is premised on receiving data from multiple mobile devices” (Prelim. Resp. 33), because the cited portion of Couper merely describes receiving data from many multiple devices as an embodiment, and does not indicate that Couper’s system is limited to or premised on only that embodiment. Ex. 1008, 6:11–19. Consequently, based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability of claim 5 based on the Couper-Lemelson-Jones combination at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 44

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,039,259

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.