• Chanel, Inc. v. Molo Design, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 9, 2023 · IPR2022-00543 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–11, 13, 16, 18, 20–25, and 27 were not shown unpatentable under any of three §103 grounds because Petitioner failed to establish the claimed foldable supports and fastener arrangement.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues, with support from its declarant, Mr. Rake, that one skilled in the art during the relevant time frame “would have a bachelor’s degree and at least two years of relevant experience working as an industrial designer, interior designer, furniture designer, architect, or other similar professional” and “would be knowledgeable regarding furniture design and/or the design of exhibit and display systems, and would have a general understanding of related manufacturing processes.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–44). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal, and Patent Owner’s declarant agrees with it. Ex. 2010 ¶ 34 (“I believe this is an accurate definition of a POSITA and have used this for my analysis.”); see also Pet. Reply 1 (“The parties agree on the POSITA and level of ordinary skill in the art.”). We adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’366 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Because the issue of whether Petitioner has proven unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence can be resolved without expressly construing the claim terms “supports,” “self-supporting,” “operable,” and “flaccid,” we reject the notion that Petitioner somehow violated our rules by not developing a more explicit construction of those terms. In addition, because Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position that we need not formally construe any of the terms to address the issues in this proceeding or offer a competing construction, we need not construe any of these terms. See, e.g., Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where the construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 13

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

    “Even if we consider an argument that claim 1 would have been obvious without considering whether a POSITA would have been motivated to fold the SoftHousing end panels into a tubular configuration, we would not find that argument convincing. None of the prior art at issue here discloses partition end panels that are semi-circular as in the design the ’366 patent discloses, much less flexible panels folded into that configuration. Instead, both SoftHousing and Arens disclose end panels having unfolded, planar surfaces, and the Velcro reference does not teach partitions at all. See Ex. 1005, 2; Ex. 1006, 11; Ex. 1007, 2; Ex. 1012, 2; Ex. 1013, Fig. 3; PO Resp. 34–35; Ex. 2010 ¶ 124. Further, merely adding the Velcro teachings from SoftHousing III, Arens, or the Velcro reference to the planar end panels of SoftHousing would not necessarily satisfy the claim limitation requiring a fastener capable of securing supports in a tubular configuration, and Petitioner does not explain how that modification meets that aspect of the fasteners limitation without the premise that a POSITA would have been motivated to form a tubular configuration. See Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 86–88, 118). The cited declarant testimony repeats the same language from the Petition when addressing why modifying SoftHousing to include fasteners would have been obvious (i.e., the fasteners would have been obvious only when a POSITA already “wanted” to form the tubular configuration). See Ex. 1003 ¶ 118. Neither the Petition nor supporting declarant set forth a coherent argument that adding fasteners capable of securing a folded support in a tubular configuration would have been obvious merely by adding Velcro to the end panels of the honeycomb core in SoftHousing’s partitions.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “4. Conclusion We find that Petitioner’s proposed modifications to and combination of SoftHousing I, SoftHousing II, SoftHousing III, Arens, and Velcro do not disclose all of the limitations of independent claim 1. We find that we need not reach Patent Owner’s alleged objective indicia of nonobviousness arguments because even if Patent Owner submitted no such evidence or failed to establish a nexus or any persuasive objective indicia evidence, our conclusion as to the obviousness of claim 1 would not change. Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded that Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’366 patent is unpatentable as obvious based on the combination of SoftHousing I, SoftHousing II, SoftHousing III, Arens, and Velcro.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,866,366 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,866,366
• Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Inc. v. Motive Drilling Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00327 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–17 and 22 were not shown unpatentable because the Pirovolou-based combinations did not establish the comparison required by limitation 15.3.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or petroleum engineering, or a closely related scientific field, and three-five years of work experience related to the design, performance, and control of components and systems used in oil and gas exploration and production, including downhole tools used in drilling applications. A lack of experience can be remedied with additional education, and vice versa. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 37–41). Patent Owner does not provide its own assessment regarding the level of skill in the art or otherwise dispute Petitioner’s assertion in its Patent Owner Response. See generally PO Resp.; cf. Prelim. Resp. 29 (Patent Owner indicates that it “has adopted Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art.”). However, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Hilbert, notes that he is familiar with Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, and opines that “the Petition’s articulation of the level of skill accurately reflects that of [one of ordinary skill in the art] with respect to the ’283 [p]atent.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 44 (citing Pet. 7). Based on this record, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill, which also was applied in our Institution Decision, because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 9

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

    “After reviewing the full record, we determine that it is unnecessary to construe the term “estimated position of the drill bit in the formation,” to reach a determination in this proceeding. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). However, we address the parties’ dispute regarding the meaning of limitation [15.3], i.e., “comparing . . . the estimated position of the drill bit to a desired position of the drill bit along a planned path of the borehole,” within our merits analysis below. See Pet. Reply 14–15; PO Sur-reply 16.” slip op. at 11

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

    “construes limitation [15.3] to require that “the comparison [be] performed on two positions ‘along a planned path of the borehole.’” Pet. Reply 14 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the ’283 patent’s Specification and the language of limitation [15.3]. Figure 7C of the ’283 patent, reproduced below, is an illustration of “one embodiment of a convergence plan diagram with multiple convergence paths.” Ex. 1001, 1:56–57. Figure 7C illustrates “the estimated bit position is indicated by arrow 743 relative to the desired bit position 741 along the planned path 742.” Id. at 18:12–14.6 Contrary to Petitioner’s argument that limitation [15.3] “clearly recites that the comparison is performed on two positions ‘along a planned path of the borehole’” (Pet. Reply 14 (emphasis omitted)), we understand limitation [15.3] to recite that only one position, i.e., “a desired position,” is “along a planned path of the borehole.” See Ex. 1001, 36:12–14 (“comparing . . . the estimated position of the drill bit to a desired position of the drill bit along a planned path of the borehole”).” slip op. at 25

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

    “Ex. 2010 ¶ 95. We find to be credible Dr. Hilbert’s testimony that, if two points are both along a planned path, a comparison would not indicate whether the drill is outside a margin of error. We also credit Dr. Hilbert’s declaration testimony that the purpose of limitations 15.3 and 15.4 is to compare the estimated position of the drill bit to a desired position of the drill bit along a planned path of the borehole and calculate more than one solution defining a path from the estimated position of the drill bit to the planned path if the drill bit is off course (i.e., outside a defined margin of error relative to the desired position). Id. ¶ 96. During his deposition, when asked whether “the step of comparing the estimated position of the drill bit to a desired position of the drill bit along a planned path of the borehole is used to determine whether the bit is off course,” Dr. Schubert agreed. Ex. 2013, 73:17–22. Dr. Schubert also agreed that in order “to determine that [the bit]’s off path, you have to look at the planned path, not the projected trajectory.” Id. at 87:16–19. Based on the full record, we agree with Patent Owner that “both parties’ experts agree that the alleged comparison in Pirovolou—a comparison of two points on the same projected trajectory (i.e., a trajectory that has not yet been drilled)— will not be indicative of whether a correction is presently necessary.” PO Sur-reply 18 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 96–97; Ex. 2013, 73:17–22, 87:16–19). Therefore, Petitioner fails to establish that Pirovolou discloses or renders obvious the comparison recited by limitation [15.3] when read in context with limitation [15.4].” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 8,210,283 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,210,283
• Yantai Jereh Petroleum Equipment & Technologies Co., Ltd v. BJ Energy Solutions, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · PGR2021-00103 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 were not shown unpatentable on any asserted ground; the Board found the prior art failed to establish key limitations and rejected the enablement and indefiniteness challenges.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In reply, Petitioner argues that the ’764 patent’s control system is not complex as there are no detailed algorithms, logic, or software. Pet. Reply 4. Instead, the control system merely raises or lowers power of the pumps in accordance with the demand HHP of the job design. Id. (citing Ex. 1036, 97:15–98:18, 98:21–99:25, 100:1–101:25, 102:2–7, 115:4–9, 115:24–116:4, 116:17–22; Ex. 1001, 5:2–6, 6:36–7:7, 10:4–64). According to Petitioner, this “rudimentary control concept” does not necessitate the higher skill level proposed by Patent Owner. Id. Petitioner further notes that Dr. Adnan testifies that “a mechanical engineer who has worked in the industry developing programming and control systems could fall within this definition,” and the person of ordinary skill in the art “is ‘just a specifier.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 2003 ¶ 22; Ex. 1036, 161:21–164:18). Based on our review of the record before us, particularly the ’764 patent’s description and Dr. Adnan’s testimony, we agree with Petitioner that the ordinary level of skill in the art does not require the high level of specialized knowledge of control systems suggested by Patent Owner. Moreover, we find that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the full record, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher is unqualified to serve as an expert in this proceeding. As noted above, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not required to have been a fracturing operator. Patent Owner’s proposed definition does not even require experience as a fracturing operator. See PO Resp. 20–21. Furthermore, Mr. Marscher testifies that he has extensive experience developing pumps for fracturing applications. Ex. 2027, 6:24–8:7. Mr. Marscher also testifies that he has experience with control systems relating to pumps and pumps units. Id. at 212:19–23. This testimony, as well as his declaration and curriculum vitae, show that Mr. Marscher has extensive education and experience in relevant fields. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 8–17; Ex. 1004. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Mr. Marscher’s qualifications or experience provide reason to discount the weight associated with Mr. Marscher’s testimony.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In its Reply, Petitioner argues that the maximum power output value is the pump unit’s highest HHP output and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this value is the pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty. Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72, 123–124; Pet. 9–10; Ex. 1036, 64:17–67:13, 119:17–120:11, 124:7–24, 198:9–200:9, 221:8–222:15). However, even if Petitioner is correct that the “maximum power output value” is near or equivalent to a pump unit’s output power in intermittent duty, we are still not persuaded that the term “maximum intermittent power” should be tied to the “maximum power output value,” in conflict with the definition provided in the Specification. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is indefinite. Pet. Reply 3. For the reasons discussed below (see supra § II.I.1), we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the term “maximum intermittent power,” as defined in the Specification, is indefinite. Thus, based on the complete record before us, we maintain our prior construction of “maximum intermittent power” for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 13

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

    “3. Additional Terms We determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,815,764 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,815,764
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 29, 2022 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because Coffee did not disclose the claimed copying, and Coffee combined with Heijden did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Initial and Rehearing Decisions, we noted that Patent Owner did not contest Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art at that stage of the proceeding and we found “Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record.” Initial Dec. 13 (citing 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)); Rehearing Dec. 16 (same). Therefore, we adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Initial Dec. 13; Rehearing Dec. 16. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 7. Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary finding by adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “received message 7102 and the header of the response message 7202 are not the same. PO Resp. 25 (citations omitted); Pet. Reply 14. In the Petition, Petitioner argued that “header information” was the same in each message (received and response). Pet. 32 (citations omitted), 36–37. Petitioner relies on Tables 58 and 63, which show “Header.” Id. at 32–33, 37. Petitioner also relies on paragraphs 102 and 118 of Mr. Andrews’s Declaration. Neither the Petition nor Mr. Andrews’s Declaration, however, provide any sufficient basis to find that even a portion of the header or header information is copied from the received message to the response message. Mr. Andrews states his opinion as though it were fact without providing the underlying factual support for his opinion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102, 118; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). In cross-examination, Mr. Andrews provided additional information explaining which portion of the headers he believes are the same, but he still does not provide any explanation as to why he believes the information is copied. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 at 111:3–25. The same is true of Petitioner’s Reply, which reiterates Mr. Andrews’s deposition testimony, but still fails to provide any reason as to why Coffee’s charts or Mr. Andrews’ testimony necessarily means that Coffee copies a portion of the header from the received message to the response message. See Continental Can Co. U.S.A., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”). And, despite Petitioner’s identification of a “Header” listed in Tables 58 and 63, Coffee does not expressly describe the header or part of the header as being copied from the received message to the response message. The Petition and Mr. Andrews also state that “if Coffee did not employ such copying, the response message would not automatically include information extracted from the received message.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). But, Coffee does not expressly describe the header as being “extracted from the received message” or describe automatically including the header in a response message to make the leap argued by Petitioner and Mr. Andrews. Accordingly, on the full record before us, we find that Petitioner has not established that Coffee explicitly or inherently discloses copying the header or header information and we do not credit Mr. Andrews’ testimony, discussed above, because he fails to provide the underlying factual basis for the opinions offered.” slip op. at 43

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

    “proceeding and on the full record before us, we do not find that Coffee’s silence is sufficient to support Petitioner’s argument. See Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 787 Fed. Appx. 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“We do not find any error in the Board changing its understanding of the teachings of [a prior art reference] from the institution decision to the final written decision. ‘The Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if convinced that its inclinations were wrong.’” (quoting Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Coffee does not explain the process by which the IOD of the received message is included in the response message; rather, Coffee just states that the response message “contains the IOD of the message being answered.” See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 56:63–67 (see full text quoted above). In particular, although Coffee attributes certain actions to the operator, the lack of attribution to the operator does not necessitate that the only viable possibility remaining is that Coffee copies the IOD from the received message to the response message. Even if it may be said that Coffee probably (or possibly) copies the IOD, that probability is not sufficient to find that Coffee necessarily copies the IOD. See Continental Can, 948 F.2d at 1269 (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”).7 Additionally, on the full record before us, we determine that Mr. Andrews’s testimony, as with his testimony as to copying of the header and selected response, fails to provide any factual or underlying support for his opinions expressed therein. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–102. In particular, the leap occurs in paragraph 102, where Mr. Andrews takes the fact that some information (at least the IOD) from the received formatted message is included with the response message to opine that this means the information is “copied over.” Id. ¶ 102. But, again, Coffee is silent. And because Mr. Andrews did not provide any underlying factual basis for his opinion, we do not credit his testimony as to copying the IOD. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 48

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

    “generally, including the alleged benefits of such and reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to include field-mapping information in Coffee’s MDT. See id. at 62–70. None of Petitioner’s discussion, however, explains how the combination of Coffee and Heijden remedies the deficiencies that we identified regarding Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee. In particular, Petitioner does not assert or explain how the teachings of Heijden would be applied to Coffee such that Coffee would then copy or fill in the specific information from Coffee’s received message to Coffee’s response message, particularly as pertains to the header, Response, and IOD fields (which Petitioner relied on in the first ground), or any other information field from Coffee. The same is true of Mr. Andrews’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 214–231. Additionally, it appears that Petitioner’s analysis of the combination of Heijden and Coffee maintains the position that Coffee copies information fields. See Pet. 70 (“Given that Coffee’s system already implements field mapping to copy information fields . . . .”). And, Mr. Andrews’s testimony similarly maintains that Coffee copies information fields. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 229 (“Coffee also discloses (at least inherently) field mapping by describing that data is copied from fields in request messages into corresponding fields in response message.”). But, as we explain in detail in the context of Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Coffee copies or fills in information from a received message to a response message. Thus, we do not find and Petitioner does not allege that Ground “1B” fills the gaps identified in Petitioner’s Ground “1A.”10 Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Coffee and Heijden would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–4, 7–9, and 12 unpatentable.” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 6,925,308 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• Shenzhen Buxiang Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Sun Pleasure Co. LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00080 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 were not shown unpatentable because Metzger lacked the claimed fluid passage, and Wu was not prior art based on the claims’ earlier reduction to practice.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on the testimony of Mr. Kuchel, Petitioner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have either (i) a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or an equivalent field, or (ii) would have an associate degree in mechanical engineering, or an equivalent field, and two years of practical experience in inflatable product design.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 26). In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 9. In its Response, Patent Owner makes arguments that rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, but does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. See PO Resp. 35, 39–53 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 66). Based on our review of the complete record, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Petitioner proposes claim constructions for the terms “substantially below” and “substantially inwardly” recited in claims 1 and 6. Pet. 40–41. In the Decision on Institution, we determined that it was not necessary to construe the terms at that stage of the proceeding. Dec. Inst. 9–10 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Patent Owner contends “the claim terms ‘substantially below’ and ‘substantially inwardly’ are sufficiently clear on their face to preclude any need for claim construction,” but proposes claim constructions that differ somewhat from Petitioner’s proposed constructions in the event the Board determines that these terms require claim construction. PO Resp. 13, 15–16. Patent Owner also proposes a claim construction for the term “upper tubular periphery” recited in claims 1 and 6 that Petitioner opposes. Id. at 17–19; Pet. Reply 7–10. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. Because the outcome of our decision does not depend on either parties’ construction of the terms “substantially below,” “substantially inwardly,” or “upper tubular periphery,” we need not construe these terms to resolve the issues in dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Metzger’s gaps define fluid passages located between adjacent side support beams 25 (i.e., “internal walls”) and are not formed in any of the side support beams. We are not directed to any written description in Metzger indicating that the gaps are formed in a side support beam.7 Instead, Figures 5 and 6 of Metzger depict the gaps as being defined between four distinct side support beams 25. Furthermore, as Patent Owner points out, Mr. Kuchel appears to agree that there are no passages formed through the side support beams 25 of Figures 5 and 6. Ex. 2003, 107:12–108:9, 108:17–108:21. For these reasons, we determine that Metzger’s gaps are not formed through an internal wall, as required by claim 1. In the Reply, Petitioner asserts that, even if Metzger discloses four discrete, spaced-apart beams or walls, “the gaps or slices between walls are apertures in a structure through which air can pass.” Pet. Reply 15 (emphasis added). This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 recites that the fluid passage is formed through the internal wall (which Petitioner asserts is met by Metzger’s side support beam 25), not just any structure. Petitioner’s general assertion that air passes through “a structure” fails to establish that the gaps are formed in a side support beam.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Specifically, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Metzger “that an air passage would be necessary to bypass the side support beam 25 and inflate the upper tubular periphery for the air mattress to function as intended.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 200). According to Petitioner, because Metzger discloses only a single air inlet valve, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that providing openings, or fluid passages, through the side support beam 25, in lieu of or in addition to the gaps between the side support beam 25, would have been a simple solution to adequately inflate the peripheral frame of the mattress defined by the side support beam(s) 25. Id. at 74–75 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 200). Petitioner thus presents two alternate theories for modifying Metzger: (1) providing fluid passages in at least one side support beam 25 in addition to the gaps, and (2) providing fluid passages in lieu of the gaps. In support of the first theory, Petitioner only argues that providing fluid passages in the side support beams, in addition to the gaps between the ends of the side support beams, would have allowed the peripheral frame to inflate more freely. Id. at 75 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 201). In its Response, Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner is just wrong.” PO Resp. 45 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 146–149). Dr. Letton testifies that pumps used to inflate air mattresses are low flow and low pressure and generally inflate an air mattress to a maximum pressure of around 1 psi. Ex. 2001 ¶ 147. Dr. Letton further testifies that, with Metzger’s design, the” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,353,555 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,353,555
• Zillow Group, Inc. / Zillow, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 3, 2022 · IPR2020-01656 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 7–10 were not shown unpatentable because Reuning did not disclose the ordered selection and assignment steps required by claim 1.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a skilled artisan “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a closely related field, along with two or more years of programming experience in application development, including familiarity with accessing databases and implementing user interfaces, as well as familiarity with marketing concepts and marketing workflows.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 22). Patent Owner contends a skilled artisan “would have had a degree in computer science, information systems, or a similar discipline, or equivalent work experience.” PO Resp. 2. In addition to the educational attainment, Patent Owner contends a skilled artisan would have had “one to two years of work experience implementing networked systems with user interfaces, including familiarity with databases and computerized marketing.” Id. (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 46). Patent Owner acknowledges that Petitioner offers “a slightly different level of ordinary skill in the art” but that “it is not materially different.” Id. at 2–3. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’904 patent and the prior art of record. Our Decision, however, would not be impacted if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Our decision in this case does not turn on whether or not a promotion instance is limited to one used in a marketing campaign or whether a list of contacts constitutes a promotion instance or whether the preamble is limiting. The parties also do not dispute that the cited prior art discloses promotion instances. Thus, we need not reach these issues. Consequently, we need not formally construe this term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner next contends that “promotion list” should be construed as “a collection of one or more promotion instances” but the term “does not apply to a collection of contact information.” PO Resp. 3–4 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner, in turn, contends Patent Owner “fails to explain why the word ‘collection’ should replace ‘list’ or how ‘a collection’ clarifies the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘list.’” Pet. Reply 1–2. Petitioner further contends, based on deposition testimony by Dr. Shamos, that Patent Owner “imposes intent––‘an express act of making a list’––into ‘promotion list.’” Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1020, 70:10–71:3). Patent Owner denies “there is an element of intent in the claims of the ’904 Patent.” Sur-Reply 9. We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “promotion list” as “a list of one or more promotion instances.” We note that our Decision would be the same even if we adopted Patent Owner’s construction, i.e., “a collection of one or more promotion instances.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “Owner Response that steps 1[c] through 1[h] must be performed in order. PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner provides a step-by-step analysis showing that the language of claim 1 shows that “step 1f . . . refers back to step 1e,” “step 1e . . . refers back to step 1d,” and “step 1d . . . refers back to step 1c.” Id. at 5–6 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner’s basis for its contention that the steps do not have to be performed in order is Mr. Hochman’s testimony concerning prefetching and indexing. Pet. Reply 4–7. As discussed above in connection with step 1[d], we find this testimony by Mr. Hochman to be entitled to no weight because it is entirely unsupported. We also note that Mr. Hochman’s credibility in regard to his testimony that the steps of claim 1 are not required to be performed in order is further undercut by his testimony that he is not familiar with the “the term ‘antecedent basis’ in patent law.” Ex. 2003, 52:22–24. For all of these reasons, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain language of claim 1, including the antecedent basis recited in steps 1[c] to 1[h] requires the steps to be performed in order.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,315,904 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,315,904
• Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01302 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 were not determined unpatentable because the asserted Larson and Larson–Butler grounds did not teach sampling.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither party contends that the differences in proposals affect the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art from the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’474 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include the specifics from option (b) of Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Because the parties agree that the claims remaining in the trial require “sampling” and also agree that the prior art asserted in this case does not teach “sampling” (as discussed further below), we need not construe these terms expressly to resolve the controversy before us. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. sampling Although claim 1 does not recite “sampling” expressly, the post- institution briefs make clear that the parties agree that claim 1 and its dependent claims require sampling. In particular, Patent Owner contends, (1) “the ’474 patent pertains to a technique called sampling, which involves the use of a ‘switch’” (PO Resp. 2); (2) “all of the challenged claims are directed to a sampling system and, in particular, an energy sampling system (also known as an energy transfer system)” (id.); and (3) “[t]he challenged claims only cover energy sampling and the use of switches” (id. at 20). In its Reply, although Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claims as limited to energy sampling (i.e., energy transfer systems) (Pet. Reply 3–7), Petitioner contends that based on its “subsequent analysis of [Patent Owner’s] foundational ’551 patent—one of the multiple patents which the ’474 patent incorporates by reference—[Petitioner] now agrees with [Patent Owner] that the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling.” Pet. Reply 2. Thus, at a minimum, the parties agree that the claims at issue in this proceeding require sampling.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,539,474 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,539,474
• LKQ Corporation / Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · PGR2020-00055 · APJ Robert L Kinder · PGR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 was not shown unpatentable as anticipated by the Leopaard or obvious over the Leopaard alone or with the Equinox.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “designer of ordinary skill analysis whereas the overall claimed design cannot be accurately compared to the Leopaard vehicle. As we discuss in more detail below, there are simply too many aspects of the claimed design that are not adequately disclosed by the images of the Leopard. Although LKQ’s experts project what is likely to be in these evidentiary voids, we do not find estimations of design features on par with an actual showing. LKQ’s anticipation and obviousness theories are based too much on speculation and conjecture about what features might be present in the Leopaard’s skid bar (see, e.g., Pet. Reply 22 (“most likely”)), or that various features can be discounted as “likely barely noticeable” or “unlikely to be noticeable.” Id. at 25, 28. With this understanding, we compare the design claim to the Leopaard, noting both the similarities and difference and also the shortcomings in evidence.” slip op. at 43

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “individual who has at least an undergraduate degree in transportation or automotive design and experience in the field of transportation design, or someone who has several years’ work experience in the field of transportation or automotive design. Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–42; Ex. 1004 ¶ 39). GM originally argued for a slightly different standard for the ordinary designer in its Preliminary Response, but for purposes of its Response, GM has acquiesced in LKQ’s definition. See PO Resp. 8. Mr. Peters contends that “I do not discern any relevant differences between these proposals, nor do I have any substantive disagreement with Mr. Gandy’s proposal. My opinion is the same, regardless of which definition is applied.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 27. Based on the final record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the ordinary designer.” slip op. at 16

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

    “contentions. As we analyze in detail below, LKQ’s case is not persuasive for several reasons, including its failure to provide sufficient evidence. LKQ has not produced images of the Leopaard that would enable a persuasive comparison with corresponding views of the claimed invention. The evidence produced by LKQ related to the Leopaard simply fails to clearly show several claimed aspects of the design. Because the Petition omits sufficient views of any complete single skid bar (Ex. 2004 ¶ 51), the evidence produced by LKQ related to the Leopaard simply fails to clearly show several claimed aspects of the design. For example, Exhibits 1006– 1009 include front or perspective views that show, at most, only an upper portion of a skid bar. Exhibit 1010 shows slightly more of the skid bar of its vehicle, but also omits a significant portion of the bottom of the skid bar. Ex. 2004 ¶ 51; Ex. 2006, 77:2–21. The exhibits do not show a sufficient bottom view to allow comparison and the exhibits also have obscured side views due to other trim features covering the outsides of the skid bar. For these and other reasons such as the differences between the designs discussed below, LKQ has failed to meet its burden of proof.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Petition does propose any other modifications to the Leopaard. LKQ’s obviousness analysis failed to address the differences that contribute to the overall appearance of the ’508 patent’s design. As discussed above, the evidence shows multiple readily apparent differences between the claimed design and the Leopaard. We agree with Mr. Peters that “[t]he differences I discussed above in the context of the ordinary observer are just as significant to the ordinary designer, who would likewise have recognized these readily visible features.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 86. These same differences in the aggregate create an overall ornamental design that is not basically the same between the claimed design of the ’508 patent and the Leopaard. Accordingly, the Leopaard is not a proper Rosen reference. Even before modifications may be considered, LKQ has the burden to show that the Leopaard, as it currently is “in existence,” has design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design. High Point Design, 730 F.3d at 1311. Considering the Leopaard before any proposed modifications, it is not a proper Rosen reference. Ex. 2004 ¶ 84. The Leopaard does not give basically the same visual impression as the patented design because the Leopaard does not teach a substantial vertical front face, bottom surface and edge (continuous surface below the recesses), outwardly projecting top and side surfaces, curvature from side-to-side, deep recesses entirely visible from the front, and outer perimeter shape. See id. ¶¶ 49, 52–85. As Mr. Peters testifies, the Leopaard does not have substantially the same overall appearance because “the respective designs include numerous fundamentally different design characteristics,” which “[t]he Petition does not specifically address.” Id. ¶¶ 83, 84. Without accounting for these differences—and particularly, the significance of these differences to the designer of ordinary skill in the art—the Petition lacks sufficient evidence that the Leopaard is “a single reference that creates basically the same visual impression” as the claimed design. Indeed, the differences described above in the context of the ordinary observer are just as significant to the ordinary designer, who is aware of readily apparent differences when assessing the visual impression of designs. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 25, 84–86. Thus, we are not persuaded that a designer of ordinary skill would have viewed the Leopaard to give basically the same visual impression as the ’508 patent.” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS D855,508 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
• LKQ Corporation / Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2021 · PGR2020-00054 · APJ Robert L Kinder · PGR · Final written decision

  The sole claim was not shown unpatentable: it is definite, and neither asserted obviousness combination renders the design unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. The Designer of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“DOSA”) LKQ contends that: a designer of ordinary skill would be an individual who has at least an undergraduate degree in transportation or automotive design experience in the field of transportation design, or someone who has several years’ work experience in transportation or automotive design. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 42; Ex. 1004 ¶ 41). Based on the final record, which includes testimony by LKQ’s witnesses, we adopt LKQ’s proposed definition of the ordinary designer.” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the final record, the purported issues related to a double line on the convex crease and the length of the single line do not create internally inconsistent drawings that would preclude the overall understanding of the drawing as a whole. We have considered the testimony of each witness and we find Mr. Peters’ explanation most convincing that “the claimed design describes the convex band consistently because each of the figures presents at least one of the ways that a convex band can be represented. . . . Figure 1 illustrates the two intersecting lines of the convex band, while Figures 2-4 illustrate the single max height line of the convex band.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 58. Thus, we agree with GM that these figures are not inconsistent, but rather complementary because both connecting lines (as shown in Figure 1) and the max height line (as shown in Figure 2) are accurate depictions of the convex band of the claimed design. Further, GM has presented persuasive evidence that the varied length of the line between figures is also understandable depending on the point of reference of a particular figure. Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 55, 56; Ex. 2006, 143:11–16, 144:4–7.” slip op. at 27

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “7. Overall Indefiniteness Analysis The figures of the ’065 patent are not perfect and the issues discussed above demonstrate that attention to detail matters when conveying the scope of a three-dimensional object in two dimensions. The proper standard for indefiniteness does not, however, require perfection, but instead requires that an invention is shown with “reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc., 572 U.S. at 910. The purpose of the definiteness standard is “to ensure that the disclosure is clear enough to give potential competitors (who are skilled in the art) notice of what design is claimed – and therefore what would be infringed.” Maatita, 900 F.3d at 1376. Based on the totality of the evidence before us, we determine that the claimed design of the ’065 patent is reasonably understandable and gives potential competitors, and the public, notice of the scope of the claim. As analyzed above, LKQ has not shown that most of the alleged inconsistencies are, in fact, inconsistent features within the claim. Further, we determine that the inconsistencies argued by LKQ do not in the aggregate “preclude the overall understanding of the drawing as a whole.” Id. at 1375–76.” slip op. at 45

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

    “The Petition fails to adequately address the differences between the claimed ornamental fender design and the Fiat Toro in several important areas, including: the distinct upper portions of each design, the claimed design’s inwardly folded (L-shaped) top edge, and the rear lateral edge. Based on the final record, these differences combined with the other differences noted by LKQ (Pet. 81) are substantial and prevent the Fiat Toro from having design characteristics that are basically the same as that claimed in the ’065 patent – as required for a Rosen reference.” slip op. at 67

  Patent outcomesUS D864,065 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
• Hulu, LLC / Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2020-00647 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable over Pyle and Marusi or Lewis and Marusi because each ground failed to establish a required claim limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we found that Petitioner’s proposal was consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position. Inst. Dec. 8–9 (citing 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)). As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, we see no reason to disturb that finding. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in adaptive streaming and content management” or “a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in adaptive streaming or content management” and that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” See Inst. Dec. 7–9 (setting forth and adopting Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 9

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

    “the case law makes clear that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising’” unless an “extremely limited” exception applies. See Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 812 F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting KCJ Corp., 223 F.3d at 1356; Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Here, claim 1 recites the transitional phrase “comprising,” meaning it is open-ended, and, therefore, the usual meaning of “a” as “one or more” would have been expected absent an extremely limited exception. In considering whether an exception applies, our review of the ’720 patent fails to indicate that the patentee intended the phrase to mean anything other than the usual meaning of “one or more.” Patent Owner asserts that “‘[t]he plain language of the claim clearly indicates only a single [list] is used’ to list multiple assets” and quotes two portions of the Specification, which state “a list of assets that satisfies criteria” and “a list of assets to which a . . . device is granted access.” PO Sur-reply 15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:60–67) (citing Ex. 1001, 2:23–34, 3:1–5, 4:21–23, 17:59–66). Although claim 1 of the ’720 patent recites “assets” in the plural, we fail to see how that conveys that the term “a” would have been understood as limited to “one.” Notably, neither party has identified any inconsistency, in the claims or other portions of the Specification (including the portions quoted and/or cited by Patent Owner), resulting from construing “a” as “one or more.” And, we find that there is no reason why the claims could not be met under the construction of “a” as “one or more.” Thus, we find that the ’720 patent does not “evince [ ] a clear intent to limit a or an to one.” See Convolve, 812 F.3d at 1321 (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, we construe the term “a” in “a list of assets” as “one or more” such that the phrase “a list of assets” means “one or more list of assets.” Considering next the phrase “the list of assets” recited in limitation 1[d], the parties do not dispute that the use of the term “the” means that “the list of assets” refers back to the one or more list of assets retrieved in limitation 1[c] and discussed above. See PO Resp. 3–4; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. Similarly, the parties do not dispute that the phrase “the filtered list of assets,” recited in limitation 1[e], refers back to the list of assets resulting from the filtering step of limitation 1[d]. See PO Resp. 3–4; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. We agree with the parties that each of these phrases refers back to the previous instance of the recited terms.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Fundamentally, Petitioner fails to provide any reason in the Petition as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to retrieve a list of assets based on Lewis. Instead of providing a reason as to why retrieving a list of assets would have been obvious, Petitioner points to a result achieved by Lewis—generating a dynamic manifest file that contains a list of URLs to container files containing content. In the context before us, pointing to a result to allege that a step in a process leading to the result would have been obvious is insufficient without also providing a reason with rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). Here, Petitioner relies upon the result of Lewis’s process—generating a dynamic manifest file containing a list of URLs—as the only basis as to why a previous step in the claim would have been obvious without providing any reason why the achieved result means the previous step would have been obvious. Further, although Petitioner cites to Dr. Reader’s declaration (Ex. 1003 ¶ 233), Dr. Reader’s testimony does not provide any further explanation or reason as to why this aspect of limitation 1[c] would have been obvious.11 Rather, the Petition’s 11 To the extent Petitioner relies upon its discussion of the combined teachings of Lewis and Marusi as set forth at the beginning of Petitioner’s discussion of this ground (see Pet. 54–57), that portion of the Petition does not provide an additional reason why retrieving a list of assets as recited in discussion appears to be exactly the same as Dr. Reader’s testimony on this point. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to retrieve a list of assets in light of Lewis is not supported sufficiently on the record before us.” slip op. at 46

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)New argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In its Reply, Petitioner contends that “[c]ontrary to [Patent Owner’s] claim that Lewis does not teach a list and that there was no reason to modify Lewis’ system ([PO Resp.] 30–32), the Petition and Dr. Reader clearly explain why lists and database operations would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. Reply 19 (citing Pet. 62–63; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 237–239). Petitioner reiterates the position asserted in the Petition—that it would have been obvious to retrieve a list of assets because Lewis teaches that a dynamic manifest file contains a list of URLs to container files containing content. Id. Petitioner also contends that “Lewis itself explains that it was well-known that manifest files contain a list of media assets to be played.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 20 (noting that “Manifest Resp. 37–38 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 79). In its Reply, Petitioner responds to Patent Owner’s assertion by pointing to stored video segments 375 as assets, not just processed video segments 315a–c. Pet. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 230–231). In the Petition, Petitioner did not assert or rely upon stored video segments 375 as teaching the recited “assets” or “list of assets”; rather, Petitioner relied upon processed video segments 315a–c. See Pet. 62. Petitioner’s attempt to assert, for the first time, in its Reply that processed video segments 375 also teach the recited “assets” is an improper reply argument. See, e.g., Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 74, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (“Generally, a reply . . . may only respond to arguments raised in the preceding brief. . . . ‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing. . . . Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability . . . of an original . . . claim . . . .”); see PO Sur-reply 16–18 (discussing Petitioner’s new argument). Petitioner’s attempt to (1) rely upon stored video segments 375 to teach the recited assets and (2) assert that Lewis teaches, as opposed to rendering obvious, retrieving a list of assets are both new arguments that are inappropriately raised for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply and, therefore, we disregard them. file 257 includes entries 258a through 258f”), Fig. 2 (noting that Figure 2 shows entries pointing to video segments)).” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 9,270,720 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,270,720

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.