- Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot At Tel Aviv University, Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01283 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–63 not shown unpatentable under either §103 ground because Petitioner did not sufficiently support the asserted digital mapping and delta limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Even assuming, arguendo, we were to credit Petitioner’s arguments that “it is sufficient for the prior art to render obvious a mapping exhibiting the deltas features; the prior art need not calculate the deltas themselves” (Pet. Reply 11) and that “Dr. Dallesasse agrees that modeling a Mach- Zehnder modulator as exhibiting a sinusoidal response—as Dr. Blumenthal did—was ‘reasonable’ ‘to a first order’” and “[a]ny other sources of non-linearity would merely be less significant, ‘second order effects,’” (id. at 12– 13), Petitioner does not sufficiently show that the sinusoidal response curve would look like the one Dr. Blumenthal proposes. Dr. Blumenthal asserts, without specifically or credibly explaining why, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a region of the sinusoidal response curve that includes an inflection point such that deltas both decrease and increase over some portion of the curve being linearized. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 173–174 (scaling and shifting a sinusoidal response curve so that the curve contains an inflection point within the linearized region, but without adequately explaining the evidentiary basis for these selections); id. ¶ 52 (opining that “in the close vicinity of the center of the positive or negative inflection regions, otherwise known as the Quadrature point, the modulator is almost would have included regions on both sides of an inflection point). If a person of ordinary skill would have selected a region of the sinusoidal response curve on only one side of an inflection point, the evidence does not suggest that such a mapping would satisfy both limitations 1.8 and 1.9. At best, Petitioner presents an “obvious to try rationale”: In addition to the reasons mentioned above, a POSITA would have found it obvious to try a mapping scheme in which entries in the look-up table as taught by Taraschuk are selected such that successively decreasing inputs correspond to digital output entries with either decreasing, increasing, or similar deltas between their values. Doing so would have involved choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In that regard, the deltas between values of the corresponding digital outputs can either increase, decrease, or stay the same. Accordingly, there are only three possible relationships between deltas of successive digital outputs. With so few possibilities, a POSITA would have found it obvious to try each of them. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 196). The analysis for 13.8 is incorporated by reference in 13.9. See Pet. 53–54. Although there are three possible relationships between two, consecutive deltas, there are many possible sequences of deltas––Petitioner does not sufficiently show a finite number of solutions in its challenge. Petitioner’s obvious-to-try rationale is insufficient to show that a person of ordinary skill would have used a digital-to-digital-mapping in which there are regions in which the deltas are both decreasing and increasing. Moreover, Petitioner’s Reply includes positions not supported by a Reply Declaration from Dr. Blumenthal and thus, constitute attorney argument that is not sufficiently supported by evidence. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 14–15 (Petitioner arguing “Roberts’ design obviates the need for a separate,” slip op. at 32
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“Inst. Dec. 35 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:2, 8:8). Based on our review of the complete record developed during trial, we are persuaded to modify our preliminary determinations. For the reasons discussed below, we are persuaded that the scope of claim 1 does not encompass linear compensation methods effected by analog pre-distortion because the ’998 patent specification distinguishes analog pre-distortion (see Ex. 1001, 1:64–2:36) and the prosecution history specifically distinguishes analog pre-distortion from the claimed approach (see Ex. 3001, 172).6 We find persuasive Dr. Dallesasse’s testimony that “a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the [’998] patent would understand that th[e] [claimed] approach of mapping, based on the converter output pattern differs 6 Ex. 3001 is a portion of the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 11, 133, 872, a parent of the ’998 patent. Ex. 2022 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:5–9 (’998 patent disclosing common, prior art solutions such as “an analog pre-distortion circuit to feed the modulator”); Ex. 1005, 2:53; Ex. 1006, 7:67–8:5, Fig. 6); Ex. 1001, 2:35– 37(the ’998 patent describing the need for a “digital to analog converter” that would “improve[] linearity of response without sacrificing efficiency or dynamic range” as in the common, prior art solutions). Dr. Dallesasse explains how “the prosecution history of the parent ’872 patent [illustrates] that when [Patent Owner] changed ‘correct for non-linearities’ to the more specific language ‘determined based on a pattern for actuating drive voltages that alters the linearity of an optical response of the modulator,’” “the Examiner then allowed the claims over a rejection based on Roberts,” which “suggests that there are ways to ‘correct for non-linearities’ that do not meet the amended claims, as the ’998 Patent itself admits.” Id. ¶ 79 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:5–9; Ex. 2009, 2; Ex. 1010, 16–48). During prosecution, Patent Owner argued: Roberts does not disclose a “digital-to-digital mapping,” where, “for a given plurality of N digital input data bits, the mapping to the corresponding M digital output data bits is determined based on a pattern for actuating drive voltages that alters the linearity of an optical response of the modulator,” as recited in amended claim 1. Instead, the linear compensation in Roberts is performed pursuant to a compensation function c(t) when the Vx(n) multi-bit sample streams are generated. Importantly, this linear compensation in Roberts occurs before the mapping of Vx(n) to Sx(n). As a result, the mapping between Vx(n) to Sx(n) in Roberts, such as the mapping shown in Table 1 of Roberts, is not a part of the linear compensation operation performed in Roberts. Ex. 3001, 172 (emphasis added). We interpret the quoted passage to exclude analog pre-distortion because we interpret the argument distinguishing distortion techniques––in particular, those accomplished by analog compensation function, c(t). Id. Both the ’998 patent and Patent Owner’s arguments during prosecution support Dr. Dallesasse’s testimony and Patent Owner’s position that the scope of claim 1 does not encompass linear compensation methods effected by analog pre-distortion.” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“limitation 1.9. This is because the idealized sinusoidal curves that form the basis of Dr. Blumenthal’s analysis lack a sufficient showing of relevance to the teachings of Taraschuk cited by Petitioner. Patent Owner persuades us that Petitioner does not point to any basis for a LUT having the recited deltas except for Dr. Blumenthal’s analysis. Although Wright generally teaches compensating for mismatches, Dr. Blumenthal’s analysis fills in limitations 1.8 and 1.9––Petitioner does not set forth a sufficiently supported reason for using the specific values recited in limitations 1.8 and 1.9. Even assuming, arguendo, we were to credit Petitioner’s arguments that “it is sufficient for the prior art to render obvious a mapping exhibiting the deltas features; the prior art need not calculate the deltas themselves” (Pet. Reply 11) and that “Dr. Dallesasse agrees that modeling a Mach- Zehnder modulator as exhibiting a sinusoidal response—as Dr. Blumenthal did—was ‘reasonable’ ‘to a first order’” and “[a]ny other sources of non-linearity would merely be less significant, ‘second order effects,’” (id. at 12– 13), Petitioner does not sufficiently show that the sinusoidal response curve would look like the one Dr. Blumenthal proposes. Dr. Blumenthal asserts, without specifically or credibly explaining why, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a region of the sinusoidal response curve that includes an inflection point such that deltas both decrease and increase over some portion of the curve being linearized. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 173–174 (scaling and shifting a sinusoidal response curve so that the curve contains an inflection point within the linearized region, but without adequately explaining the evidentiary basis for these selections); id. ¶ 52 (opining that “in the close vicinity of the center of the positive or negative inflection regions, otherwise known as the Quadrature point, the modulator is almost would have included regions on both sides of an inflection point). If a person of ordinary skill would have selected a region of the sinusoidal response curve on only one side of an inflection point, the evidence does not suggest that such a mapping would satisfy both limitations 1.8 and 1.9. At best, Petitioner presents an “obvious to try rationale”: In addition to the reasons mentioned above, a POSITA would have found it obvious to try a mapping scheme in which entries in the look-up table as taught by Taraschuk are selected such that successively decreasing inputs correspond to digital output entries with either decreasing, increasing, or similar deltas between their values. Doing so would have involved choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In that regard, the deltas between values of the corresponding digital outputs can either increase, decrease, or stay the same. Accordingly, there are only three possible relationships between deltas of successive digital outputs. With so few possibilities, a POSITA would have found it obvious to try each of them. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 196). The analysis for 13.8 is incorporated by reference in 13.9. See Pet. 53–54. Although there are three possible relationships between two,” slip op. at 32
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“IV. MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner requests that we exclude Petitioner’s Exhibits 1031 through 1038 submitted with Petitioner’s Reply. Paper 25, 1. Petitioner opposes. Paper 27. As we do not rely on any of these exhibits in rendering the findings and conclusions in this Decision, Patent Owner’s motion is moot.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 11,342,998 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,342,998 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00775 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 27 and 28 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the petitioner did not establish that Olgaard or Acharya was prior art; the revised contingent motion to amend was dismissed as …
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Relying on Dr. Freedman’s testimony, Unified argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) an undergraduate degree in electrical and computing engineering or a closely related field; and (2) two or more years of experience in wireless content transmission,” where “[m]ore relevant experience could compensate for less education, and vice versa.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–38). Flexiworld does not contest Unified’s description of the level of ordinary skill for this proceeding. See PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 67). Because Unified’s description is supported by uncontroverted testimonial evidence and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’257 patent, we adopt it for this decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:20–5:35 (“Technical Field” and “Background” sections of the ’257 patent, describing background knowledge relating to wireless content transmission between electronic devices).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Unified argues that “all terms should be given their plain meaning,” and does not propose any explicit constructions. See Pet. 8. In the context of this proceeding, Flexiworld agrees. See PO Resp. 29. We do not find it necessary to explicitly construe any terms to resolve the issues in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“2. Conclusion as to Obviousness For the reasons above, we determine that evidence independent of inventor testimony corroborates (1) a conception date no later than October 22, 2000 and (2) reasonably continuous diligence in reducing the claimed invention to practice until January 19, 2001. Having considered the evidence as a whole under a rule-of-reason analysis, we determine that Unified has not shown that the conception date for the claimed invention was on or after October 24, 2000, or that the inventors did not exercise reasonably continuous diligence during the critical period between October 24, 2000 and January 19, 2001. Unified relies on a priority date of October 24, 2000 for Olgaard and a priority date of December 22, 2000 for Acharya. See Pet. 1–2 & n.2; see also Ex. 1005, code (63); Ex. 1007, codes (22), (43). However, the corroborated conception date for claims 27 and 28 antedates the above priority dates for both Olgaard and Acharya. See supra Section III.C.1. Thus, Unified has not shown that either Olgaard or Acharya is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (2006). Unified provides no theory of obviousness that does not depend on either Olgaard or Acharya being prior art. See Pet. 2, 8–80.” slip op. at 20
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“claimed inventions were conceived no later than October 22, 2000, and Unified has not shown to the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence. First, we find credible Mr. Chang’s testimony that Exhibit 2013 and other related drafts, including their filenames and metadata, have not been altered. Ex. 2031 ¶ 1. We regard the metadata as the most reliable indicator of the latest date each draft was completed. Although the filename dates may differ from the metadata dates, these minor differences do not call into question the reliability of the metadata as the last date on which the drafts were modified. Most significantly, the “last modified” date for Exhibit 2013 is October 22, 2000. That the inventors produced at least three other drafts and then filed a provisional application just ten days later on November 1, 2000 further supports a conception date before October 24, 2000. Ex. 2031 ¶ 6; Ex. 2016; Ex. 2040.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,836,257 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,836,257 - Berkeley Lights, Inc. v. The University Of British ColumbiaNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 19, 2023 · IPR2021-01249 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 19, 24, 26, 27, and 30 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not establish selective recovery or a sufficient motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on Dr. Meinhart’s testimony, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, biomedical engineering, molecular biology, (bio)chemistry, or an equivalent degree relevant to microfluidic biological cell analysis, and three to five years of experience with the construction of and application of microfluidic devices to cell culture and analysis.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 40). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 3–4 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 19–20). We find Petitioner’s uncontested articulation to be reasonable in light of the subject matter involved in the ’408 patent and its description of the relevant prior-art background. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:15–2:54 (describing the field and related art as relating to the construction and use of microfluidic devices in cell culture and analysis). Thus, we adopt it for our decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “no terms require express construction for purposes of resolving the challenges in this proceeding.” Pet. 9; accord Pet. 12. Petitioner also notes that in the parallel district court proceedings, Patent Owner has proposed constructions for the terms chamber and retaining position that differ from Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1013 App’x A, 1, 3 (Patent Owner’s proposed constructions); Ex. 1021, 7, 8 (Petitioner’s proposed constructions); Ex. 1002 ¶ 44). In those proceedings, Patent Owner’s proposed construction for chamber is “an enclosed space within a microfluidic device,” and its proposed construction for retaining position is “a location in the chamber at which a cell is maintained during cell culture and media exchange.” Ex. 1013, 6, 8. Although Petitioner does not contend that its arguments rely on the choice of construction for these terms, Petitioner adopts Patent Owner’s constructions for this proceeding. Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not contest these proposed constructions, or propose any other explicit constructions. See generally PO Resp. We agree with Petitioner that we do not need to construe the terms chamber and retaining position to decide the issues presented in this proceeding, and to the extent we need to interpret the meaning of any claim language, we address the interpretations below in the context of the prior art. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“selectively recovering a cell based on the response in the monitoring step. Although Dimov discloses non-selective recovery and briefly lists a few general techniques that might be used for either mixing or recovery, Dimov does not specifically indicate which of the techniques would be useful for recovery rather than just mixing, and Dimov does not explicitly disclose that any cell recovery would be selective. Nor has Petitioner shown that Dimov inherently discloses selectively recovering any particular cell that has been cultured and monitored, because, as Dr. Gale persuasively testifies, Dimov’s removal techniques could, as far as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known based on Dimov’s disclosure, be merely for “removing . . . unwanted particles out of the capture chamber/trench.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 64; see also id. ¶ 63 (“Dimov . . . may suggest removing cellular materials (rather than intact cells) after capture . . . .”). In other words, given Dimov’s general focus on performing experiments within the trenches and the lack of any specific disclosure about how or why to remove cells, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Dimov’s potential cell-removal techniques would have necessarily been based on a response of a specific cell being cultured and monitored in limitation 1D. We also agree with Patent Owner that Dimov does not disclose any specifics about how to carry out a selective cell removal based on one of Dimov’s listed techniques, such as laser tweezers. See PO Resp. 8–9. Nor does Petitioner meet its burden of showing that such a technique would have been within the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. “In order to anticipate, a prior art disclosure must also be enabling, such that one of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Novo Nordisk Pharms., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Given the labyrinthine outlet channels leading from Dimov’s chambers to the common waste stream and Dimov’s lack of any disclosure of a way to identify and extract cells in the outlet streams, we credit Dr. Gale’s testimony that there would have been substantial obstacles to recovering any specific cells that had been liberated from a trench in Dimov’s device. See Ex. 2012 ¶ 63. Petitioner has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have overcome those obstacles without undue experimentation.” slip op. at 23
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther
“18 Patent Owner contends that these arguments are untimely, and we agree at least as to certain of the arguments. See Paper 27, Nos. 6, 9, 10; see Paper 28, Nos. 6, 9, 10 (Petitioner’s responses). The new arguments introduce new theories as to how to combine Park and Kovac, including additional steps or new modifications necessary for a successful combination, which could have been presented in the Petition but were not. Nevertheless, as we discuss below, we find these arguments unpersuasive. Petitioner also contends, for the first time, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have addressed the problem of Park’s downward-forcing circulation patterns19 by starting with flow turned off and then turning on flow “after levitation begins, including after the cell has been pushed up out of a well high enough to be clear of recirculating flow lines created once it is turned on.” Pet. Reply 19–20 (citing Ex. 1039 ¶¶ 175– 177); see also id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1039 ¶ 193).” slip op. at 64
Patent outcomesUS 10,087,408 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,087,408 - Google LLC v. Neonode Smartphone LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2021-01041 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Google did not show claims 1–7, 9, 12, 13, and 15–17 unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach or suggest the claimed multi-step activation involving gliding away.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For Google, Dr. Wobbrock testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Human-Computer Interaction, Symbolic Systems, or related engineering disciplines, and at least two years of experience designing and programming graphical user interfaces,” but that “[r]elevant work experience can substitute for formal education and advanced degree studies could substitute for work experience.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 49. Testifying for Neonode, Dr. Rosenberg states that for his declaration, he “will apply the same definition of the level of skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” as Dr. Wobbrock. Ex. 2019 ¶ 27. We find Dr. Wobbrock’s uncontested articulation to be reasonable in light of the subject matter involved in the ’879 patent and the asserted prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:49–61 (stating that the ’879 patent addresses technical problems including “to provide a user-friendly interface . . . on a small handheld computer unit”). Thus, we adopt it for our decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Google does not propose any explicit claim constructions in its Petition. See Pet. 4. Neonode does not propose any explicit constructions either, but in its Response, Neonode raises a number of claim construction arguments regarding the term gliding . . . away as it appears in limitation 1c, to which Google responds in its Reply. See PO Resp. 31–50, 66–69; Pet. Reply 7–12, 19–21; see also PO Sur-reply 1–10, 19–21. We do not need to construe this term explicitly for our decision, and to the extent we need to interpret this or any other terms, we address the terms below in the context of the prior art. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We find Google’s argument unpersuasive.10 Tarpenning’s assignment operation for hotkey 82 is in the nature of a drag-and-drop operation, where the user drags the pen from hotkey 82 to the intended menu item to which hotkey 82 will be assigned. But Google identifies the “function [to be] activated”—not as the actual assignment of hotkey 82 to the menu item when the user lifts from the intended menu item—but as the underlying software process that looks to see whether the user has lifted yet from the selected menu item. See Pet. Reply 19–20; Tr. 37:17–39:16. Essentially, Google asserts that the recited function is part of processing the gesture itself, which we do not find persuasive. As counsel for Neonode argued at the hearing, unless the user lifts off from a menu item, no assignment to hotkey 82 has been made and nothing has actually been done. See Tr. 80:4– 13. 10 We also consider this argument untimely, as it appears to contradict Google’s original theory of obviousness in the Petition, which states that the “‘assignment’ function” is “completed when the user reaches the target item to be assigned.” Pet. 79; see also Tr. 80:2–3 (counsel for Neonode arguing, “I submit that’s not only a new point they’re making, it’s unsupported and . . . incorrect.”); 37 CFR § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response[] or decision on institution.”). We also find unpersuasive Google’s original argument in the Petition that the recited “function” is activated when the user reaches the target menu item being assigned to hotkey 82. See Pet. 79. This is essentially a traditional drag-and-drop operation. But we credit Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that when the user lifts from the intended menu item, no function has actually been activated. See Ex. 2019 ¶ 139. Rather, at this point a function has merely been assigned to the hotkey for future activation by touching the hotkey. See id. Thus, we determine that Google has not identified any disclosure in Tarpenning in which any “function is activated by a multi-step operation” as recited in limitation 1c. Absent that teaching or suggestion, Google’s argument (Pet. 80–82) does not adequately articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Tarpenning’s book menu key 84 or library menu key 86 to achieve limitation 1c, and we find Google’s obviousness argument unpersuasive as to claim 1.” slip op. at 36
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“would have understood Robertson’s “flick” gesture to comprise “gliding . . . away” as we interpret that term. Robertson says very little about the “flick” gestures themselves, other than using the word flick. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 39. Robertson teaches that its gestures should be “easily differentiated,” and in addition to “flick” gestures, Robertson also teaches “drag and drop” operations. Id. at 36 (“[Y]ou can drag a document icon and drop it into a printer icon to print the document . . . .”). We credit Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that, for the XButton system to immediately distinguish between dragging and flicking, there must be some distinction between a “flick” and a “drag,” and that the most plausible difference is in terms of their speed, distance, or both. See Ex. 2019 ¶ 90. Although Robertson discloses that its system is capable of recognizing gestures that start on an XButton and extend outside it (see Ex. 1005, 43), a “glide” or that the distinction is arbitrary. Cf. Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc., 749 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Descriptive words . . . are commonly used in patent claims, to ‘avoid[] a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995))) the only gesture for which Robertson specifically indicates this would be necessary is a “circling gesture[] for grouping, moving, and copying graphical objects” (id. at 39). Thus, we disagree with Google that Robertson’s teaching in this regard is relevant to what Robertson means by a “flick” gesture. We also find persuasive Neonode’s dictionary definitions, spanning from 1993 to 2012, which consistently indicate that the word flick describes a movement that is “light,” “sharp” or “quick,” and “jerky” or “sudden,” as opposed to definitions of “glide” referring to a movement that is “smooth,” “continuous,” and possibly “quiet” or “effortless.” Exs. 2049, 2050, 2052, 2057.9 And although the evidence postdates Robertson, we find relevant the supporting evidence that modern Apple and Google developers maintain a meaningful distinction between “flick” and “swipe” gestures. See Ex. 2022, 4; Ex. 2023, 6; Ex. 2025, 21; Ex. 2026, 5; Ex. 2029, 2; Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 80–81. We further credit Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion that in the relevant time frame, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted a “flick” gesture as one in which “the pen would touch the screen, but only moves on the screen for a very short distance and is quickly lifted from the screen in a ‘jerky’ motion.” Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 85–86. 9 The earliest dictionary definitions (Ex. 2052) are from 1993, which is roughly contemporary with Robertson (1991), and are sufficiently close in time to be relevant. Google does not present any evidence suggesting that the meaning of flick had changed between 1991 and 1993. See PO Sur-reply 2. Thus, we agree with Neonode that Google has not shown that Robertson’s “flick” gesture comprises “gliding . . . away,” and thus falls within the scope of claim 1. Finally, we also agree with Neonode that Google has not established that Robertson’s “insert” (caret) gesture comprises “gliding . . . away.” Although Robertson does not provide much information about this gesture, we find Dr. Rosenberg’s interpretation and annotated version of Figure 1 (Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 99–102) more credible than those of Dr. Wobbrock (Ex. 1003 ¶ 108). We credit Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “insert” gesture to be similar to the way a person would draw a caret to indicate an insertion within existing text. See Ex. 2019 ¶ 99. Thus, we agree it would involve two brief, connected movements with a sharp peak, neither of which would be a continuous gliding or swiping motion. Id. ¶¶ 100–102.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 8,095,879 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,095,879 - Polycom, Inc. v. Directpacket Research, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 26, 2022 · IPR2019-01233 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Remand
Claims 1–23 were not shown unpatentable over Ress or Ress and Doyle because the cited art did not teach receiving a multimedia data stream that includes media.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Having analyzed the record in view of our reviewing court’s directive, we determine on remand, for the reasons that follow, that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–23 of the ’588 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“protocols for media stream communications (Pet. 24; Ex. 1004, 1:20–24), but the operative issue as to limitation1[a] is whether Ress teaches that a multimedia data stream, including media, is received at the communication controller (call server). We have reviewed the evidence and argument provided by Petitioner during trial, and we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Ress teaches or suggests this limitation. PO Resp. 18–19. The evidence supports Patent Owner’s contention, referencing annotated Figure 3 reproduced below, that “Ress illustrates a ‘packetized media stream’ (in blue) communicated between gateways is not associated with the signaling messages (in red) communicated to the call server” and “[t]he ‘packetized media stream’ notably never reaches the call server 300 of Ress.” Id. at 14, 19.” slip op. at 16
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We determine that Petitioner presents new evidence and arguments post-appeal, which is impermissible. In its Opening Brief On Remand, Petitioner refers to multiple portions of Ress which had not been cited in either the Petition or Petitioner’s Reply. See Pet. Rem. Br. 1–6 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:62–65, 4:35–42, 7:49–53, 11:62–65, 12:3–9, 4:36–38, 12:6–12, 13:54–59, 12:25–29, 12:31–33, 18:21–24, 18:51–52, 19:6–12). Petitioner also refers to evidence that was cited in Petition and Reply but was not previously relied upon for any assertions related to any transmission of media to the call server in Ress. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 6:16–19, 10:45–49, 18:11–14, 12:13–17, 12:18–21, Figs. 7, 12–19).” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“protocols for media stream communications (Pet. 24; Ex. 1004, 1:20–24), but the operative issue as to limitation1[a] is whether Ress teaches that a multimedia data stream, including media, is received at the communication controller (call server). We have reviewed the evidence and argument provided by Petitioner during trial, and we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Ress teaches or suggests this limitation. PO Resp. 18–19. The evidence supports Patent Owner’s contention, referencing annotated Figure 3 reproduced below, that “Ress illustrates a ‘packetized media stream’ (in blue) communicated between gateways is not associated with the signaling messages (in red) communicated to the call server” and “[t]he ‘packetized media stream’ notably never reaches the call server 300 of Ress.” Id. at 14, 19.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,773,588 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,773,588 - Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Interdigital Technology CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01505 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish that Zhang disclosed the claimed response to a non-zero grant construed as a power ratio greater than zero.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Here, we determine that the term “power ratio” in the involved parenthetical in the Specification is a definition, and not merely an illustrative example, of a “grant.” First, the Specification does not identify any other type of grant. Dr. Mahon testifies that the Specification does not provide an example of any other type of grant. Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. Petitioner offers no rebuttal expert testimony and identifies no other type of grant disclosed in the Specification. See Pet. Reply 1–5. We credit Dr. Mahon’s unrebutted testimony that the Specification does not identify any other type of grant. Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. Thus, the parenthetical at issue in this case does not exclude any grant described in the Specification (nor, as set forth in Section II.B.2.ii, any grant set forth by ordinary meaning of the term grant based on the extrinsic evidence of record).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner offers no extrinsic evidence, other than the testimony of Dr. Kakaes, regarding the ordinary meaning of the term “grant,” and Dr. Kakaes cites no extrinsic evidence to support his definition of the term “non-zero grant.” Pet. 12; Pet. Reply 1–5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65. Dr. Kakaes does not separately address the meaning of “grant.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65. We find Dr. Mahon’s testimony and the 3GPP Technical Specification persuasive. As set forth above, the 3GPP Technical Specification describes grants as power ratios—a fact that Petitioner does not dispute. Pet. Reply 1– 5. Further, as set forth above, in light of the Specification’s references to 3GPP standards and the 3GPP recitations in the preambles of claims 1 and 6, 3GPP standards from the time of the ’873 patent are highly relevant evidence to an ordinarily skilled artisan of the ordinary meaning of the terms “grant” and “non-zero grant.” iii. A Non-zero Power Ratio is a Power Ratio Greater than Zero Dr. Mahon testifies that a “non-zero grant” should be construed as “a power ratio greater than zero.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 33. Dr. Mahon explains that a power ratio cannot be negative, so a “non-zero” power grant must be greater than zero. Id. ¶ 38. Petitioner does not dispute Dr. Mahon’s testimony that a power ratio cannot be negative. Pet. Reply 1–5. Petitioner further does not dispute that if a “grant” is construed to be a “power ratio,” a “non-zero grant” should be construed to be a “power ratio greater than zero.” Id. We credit Dr. Mahon’s testimony that a power ratio cannot be negative. Ex. 2001 ¶ 38. Thus, in light of the Specification’s and extrinsic evidence’s teachings that a “grant” is a “power ratio,” we construe “non-zero grant” to be a “power ratio greater than zero.”” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“2. Claim 1 Claim 1 recites the following limitation: triggering transmission of scheduling information (SI), from the WTRU to a Node-B, in response to the WTRU having a non-zero grant smaller than needed preventing the WTRU from sending a medium access control protocol data unit (PDU) of any of a plurality of scheduled medium access control-d (MAC-d) flows. [“responsive limitation of claim 1”] Ex. 1001, 7:36–8:6 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not argue, let alone prove, that Zhang discloses the transmission of scheduling information “in response to the WTRU having a non-zero grant smaller than needed” when “non-zero grant” is construed as a “power ratio greater than zero.” Pet. 25–29; Pet. Reply 1–5, 12–13. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claim 1 is anticipated by Zhang. 3. Claim 5 Claim 5 depends on claim 1. Ex. 1001, 8:15–16. Petitioner relies on its showing for claim 1 for the limitations that claim 5 incorporates from claim 1. Pet. 29–30. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claim 5 is anticipated by Zhang.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“B. Ground 2: Asserted Obviousness over Zhang Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang. Pet. 5. For the responsive limitations of claims 1 and 6, Petitioner relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 32–33. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1 and 6 would have been obvious over Zhang. For claims 5 and 10, Petitioner also relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 33. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 5 and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang. C. Ground 3: Asserted Obviousness over Zhang and TS 25.321 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang and TS 25.321. Pet. 5. For this ground, Petitioner argues “[t]o the extent one might argue that Zhang does not . . . sufficiently disclose a WTRU configured to process ‘a plurality of scheduled medium access control-d (MAC-d) flows,’ it would have been obvious to include that functionality in the WTRU of Zhang in view TS 25.321.” Id. at 34 (emphasis omitted). For the responsive limitations of claims 1 and 6, Petitioner relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 34–40, 48. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang and TS 25.321. D. Ground 4: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 over Zhang and Lohr Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang and Lohr. Pet. 5. For this ground, Petitioner argues “[t]o the extent one might argue that Zhang alone, or Zhang in combination with TS 25.321 do not does not sufficiently disclose a WTRU configured to process “a plurality of scheduled medium access control-d (MAC-d) flows,’ it would have also been obvious to include that functionality in the WTRU of Zhang in view” of Lohr. Id. at 52–53 (emphasis omitted). For the responsive limitations of claims 1 and 6, Petitioner relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 52–55. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang and Lohr. E. Ground 5: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–10 over Zhang, Lohr, and TS 25.321 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang, Lohr, and TS 25.321. Pet. 5. For this ground, Petitioner argues that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang and Lohr for the reasons set forth for Grounds 1–4. Id. at 56. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang, Lohr, and TS 25.321. See Sections III.A–D above.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 8,797,873 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,797,873 - Google LLC / Ecobee, Inc. v. Ecofactor, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 3, 2022 · IPR2021-00792 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable over Wedekind and Ehlers because the petition did not show the claimed distinct inputs used to determine the start time.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are persuaded that Petitioner’s formulation, except for the qualifier “at least,” is correct.6 On the one hand, Patent Owner’s formulation is attorney argument without any supporting evidence. See PO Resp. 5–6. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to no probative value. See Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Attorney’s argument is no substitute for evidence.”); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). On the other hand, Petitioner’s proposal is supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony. See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27). Because Mr. Shah’s testimony is based on his years of experience, we give it some weight. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–10.” slip op. at 14
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“has more relevant experience. Pet. Reply 4–5; Pet. Supp. Br. 4–5. Petitioner further moves15 to exclude Dr. Palmer’s testimony. Pet. Supp. Br. 5. As our analysis does not rely on Dr. Palmer’s testimony, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion as moot. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence the unpatentability of claims 1–20 of the ’753 patent. Specifically, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Wedekind and Ehlers. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of the ’753 patent are unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to exclude the” slip op. at 30
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Reply: that the first internal temperature is acquired using the setpoint. See Pet. Reply 20. The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide states that a “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)10 73. Although “a reply . . . may . . . respond to arguments raised in the preceding brief,” “[r]espond . . . does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Id. at 74. As discussed below, we find Petitioner improperly shifted its position in the Reply by advocating a new approach. In the Petition, Petitioner argues that Wedekind teaches “acquiring at least a first internal temperature inside said structure at a third time prior to said target time” by the “continuous measurement of various air temperatures” including the internal temperature inside the structure. Pet. 42 (quoting Ex. 1006, code (57) and citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 97). According to Petitioner, “[t]he continuous measurement of temperatures includes measurement of a first a [sic] internal temperature inside said structure at or before time t3 in Fig. 2, which is the third time prior to said target time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 98). Petitioner argues that “[e]ven during times of steady-state temperature, the temperature is being continuously measured to check against the current temperature setpoint.” Id. Nowhere does Petitioner mention acquiring a temperature by using the setpoint 10 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. temperature as opposed to a measured temperature. See Pet.; PO Sur-reply 9. In its Reply, Petitioner alternatively argues that the claim limitation is satisfied even if Wedekind uses the setback/setpoint11 temperature: Even Wedekind’s parameter Ti, however, would still meet the claim language. EcoFactor principally argues that Ti is not a measured temperature, but rather just a setpoint. A setpoint, according to EcoFactor, is at best a “predict[ion] [of] air temperature at or before time t3”. To this there are three responses. First, EcoFactor simply assumes that the “setback temperature” is a setpoint, but Wedekind refers to it in the relevant passage as “the setback temperature which exists at time, t3”. (Ex. 1006, 19:61)(Emphasis added). The phrase “setback temperature setpoint”, as used by EcoFactor, does not actually occur in Wedekind. Second, even if the setback temperature were a setpoint, the setpoint is a good estimate for the temperature (Ex. 1014, 19:23-21:3), and the claims do not require a measured “first internal temperature”, merely one that is “acquired”. Finally, even if the setback temperature of Wedekind were a predicted temperature, the ’753 patent works in exactly the same way, namely by using a “predicted initial temperature PT” as the temperature at the beginning of the recovery period. (Ex. 1001, 6:17-22)(Ex. 1014, 55:25-58:4). Thus, even if EcoFactor had made an express claim construction argument, the “first internal temperature” would not have been construed to exclude predicted temperatures.” slip op. at 22
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown, based on the theory set forth in the Petition, that Wedekind teaches the disputed limitation.13 b) Conclusion Because Petitioner has not shown that one of the limitations was taught by the prior art, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show by preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. 4. Analysis of Claims 2–8 Petitioner contends that the combination of Wedekind and Ehlers would have rendered the subject matter of claims 2–8 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 61–65. Claims 2–8 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, recites the “determining a first time prior to said target time . . .” limitation. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, Petitioner’s analysis of these claims suffers from the same deficiency and Petitioner has failed to show by preponderance of the 13 Petitioner also states that Ehlers teaches the limitation. Pet. 54. The entirety of Petitioner’s statement follows: “Ehlers also teaches this limitation. (Ex. 1008, 29:23-36, 39:44-51, 19:39-40, 37:25-27. 11:53-63, 32:66-33:13, 36:27-38).” Id. Because Petitioner simply states Ehlers teaches the limitation and supplies a string citation without any explanation or supporting testimony, we do not consider Petitioner’s statement regarding Ehlers adequately explained or supported. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[A] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”). Despite being warned in the Institution Decision that we would not consider such conclusory arguments (Inst. Dec. 16–17 n.10), Petitioner did not argue in its Reply that we should consider it or provide any additional evidence or argument (see Pet. Reply). evidence that claims 2–8 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 8,498,753 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,498,753 - Google LLC / Ecobee, Inc. v. Ecofactor, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 3, 2022 · IPR2020-01504 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the Wedekind and Ehlers combination did not teach the distinct inputs required to determine the claimed start time.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are persuaded that Petitioner’s formulation, except for the qualifier “at least,” is correct.6 On the one hand, Patent Owner’s formulation is attorney argument without any supporting evidence. See PO Resp. 5–6. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to no probative value. See Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Attorney’s argument is no substitute for evidence.”); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). On the other hand, Petitioner’s proposal is supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony. See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27). Because Mr. Shah’s testimony is based on his years of experience, we give it some weight. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–10.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“After briefing, we issued an order inviting supplemental briefing of the preambles of the challenged claims. Paper 28. In the Order, we proposed that the preamble of each of the challenged claims was not limiting. Id. at 2–3. In supplemental briefing, both Petitioner and Patent Owner agreed with that construction. Paper 31, 1; Paper 32, 5. Because no express construction is needed for our decision, we do not construe any of the claim limitations. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that “we need only construe 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 15
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“has more relevant experience. Pet. Reply 4–5; Pet. Supp. Br. 4–5. Petitioner further moves15 to exclude Dr. Palmer’s testimony. Pet. Supp. Br. 5. As our analysis does not rely on Dr. Palmer’s testimony, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion as moot.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“But it is there that our agreement with Petitioner ends. The “determining a first time prior to said target time” limitation recites five distinct inputs upon which the time is based at least in part: “[i] said one or more thermal performance values of said structure, [ii] said performance characteristic of said climate control system, [iii] said first internal temperature, [iv] said first external temperature, and [v] the forecasted temperature.” By setting forth five inputs, claim 1 requires that each of those inputs be a distinct component of the calculation of the “first time prior to said target time.” “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.’” Becton Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that where a claim provides for two separate elements, a “second portion” and a “return portion,” these two elements “logically cannot be one and the same”). There is nothing in the asserted claims to suggest that one piece of data can be used to satisfy multiple inputs. See CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). However, Petitioner’s theory does not use each of the five distinct inputs. According to Petitioner, Wedekind bases t3—which Petitioner maps to the first time prior to said target time—on the first internal temperature because the first internal temperature is used to determine the thermal performance values of said structure. Pet. 54 (“Furthermore, in predicting t3, the thermal performance values of said structure (as explained under element [1k]) and characteristic of said climate control system (as explained above under element [1l]) are used in the non-linear efficiency model. (Ex. 1006, 19:50-20:2)(Ex. 1002, ¶120). The thermal performance values of said structure (as explained under element [1d]) are based on the first internal temperature and the first external temperature.”); see also Tr. 21:13–22:17 (Petitioner conceding that it is “using the first internal temperature because it’s used to create -- determine the thermal performance value”). Doing so effectively ignores a claim limitation by double counting the “one or more thermal performance values of said structure.” That is, Petitioner uses the “one or more thermal performance values of said structure” to satisfy both inputs [i] and [iii]. Although, as discussed above, claim 1 allows the indirect use of an input, it still must be used distinctly from the other listed input. Petitioner’s theory does not do that. See Pet. 54; Tr. 21:13–22:17. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown, based on the theory set forth in the Petition, that Wedekind teaches the disputed limitation.13 b) Conclusion Because Petitioner has not shown that one of the limitations was taught by the prior art, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show by preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,498,753 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,498,753 - Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Invt Spe LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2018-01473 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Keskitalo and Lindell because Petitioner did not adequately explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that “[c]laim 1 includes limitations in means-plus[-]function format, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the [Applicant] intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.”3 Pet. 7; see also Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the Decision on Institution, we addressed Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the means-plus-function terms (Pet. 10–12), and we determined that Petitioner has set forth proposed structures that support these limitations. Dec. on Inst. 8–12; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (2018).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“As for the other claim limitations of independent claims 1, 6, and 7, and claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 11 depending therefrom, neither party has proposed a construction of any other term. See Pet. 6–7; PO Resp. 12–13. We determine that we need not further construe expressly any other claim terms to resolve the arguments before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. to an inter partes review).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). In that regard, Petitioner’s expert, Andrew C. Singer, Ph.D., testifies that a POSITA at the time of the invention would have been a person having a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent plus three years of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering with an emphasis on communication systems or the equivalent plus one year of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering. Pet. 4–5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 35. Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Singer’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We adopt and apply Dr. Singer’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“position of Patent Owner. In particular, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s contention that it would have been obvious to modify Keskitalo such that its predetermined thresholds for transmission power are average transmission power values in accordance with the teachings of Lindell. Pet. 26. That is, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence that it would have been obvious to have used Lindell’s average transmission power values as Keskitalo’s predetermined thresholds for transmission power. See Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”); Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1380 (holding that Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements”).” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 6,611,676 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,611,676 - Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*link CorporationNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 16, 2017 · IPR2016-01123 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because Petitioner failed to explain adequately why or how a skilled artisan would combine the references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner proposes constructions for the claim terms “continuous noise detection algorithm” and “power distribution filter algorithm.” Pet. 24–28. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these terms. Prelim. Resp. 8–11. After analyzing the claims and supporting specification of the ’726 patent, we determine that we need not provide express constructions for the disputed claim terms in order to reach our decision.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Williams’ testimony. See generally Prelim. Resp. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Leonard J. Forys (“Dr. Forys”), however, proffers his own assessment regarding a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’726 patent. According to Dr. Forys, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in communications systems, or comparable industry experience.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 29. Dr. Forys does not address Dr. Williams’ testimony in this regard or otherwise indicate whether his analysis would change if Dr. Williams’ proffered level of ordinary were adopted. Id. We have reviewed the ’726 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’726 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Williams and Dr. Forys (who mostly agree as to the level of skill of an ordinarily skill artisan). Based on our review, we adopt and apply Dr. Williams’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention for purposes of this Decision. In addition, our analysis would not change if Dr. Forys’ proffered level of ordinary skill were adopted.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“time of the ’726 patent would likely understand the relationship between power and energy. We also agree that there is a relationship between power and energy, and that it is possible to derive information about one from the other. See Ex. 1012, 18:14–25:8; Ex. 2001, 25:10–27:14; Ex. 2005, 238. Based on the evidence of record, we do not agree, however, that power and energy “are essentially equivalent and can be used interchangeably” as asserted in the Petition. See id.; see Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 174–177). Nor do we agree one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the Gupta energy threshold is the same as the power level threshold disclosed in Li. See Ex. 1012, 18:14–25; Ex. 2001, 25:10–27:14; Ex. 2005, 238. Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Williams’s testimony regarding Gupta’s disclosure that “[a] minimum energy threshold may be programmed to [the cadence tone’s] required power level for a valid signal on a line” is equally unpersuasive. Ex. 1009 ¶ 181 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:41–44). We are unpersuaded because neither Petitioner nor Dr. Williams explains sufficiently how Gupta’s minimum energy threshold relates to a required power level or how it relates to Li’s power estimator and the purpose of Li’s power estimators. Given the lack of equivalence between power and energy, we find Petitioner fails to present sufficient evidence explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have switched from detecting a power threshold, such as that described in Li and required by the challenged claims, to detecting an energy threshold as disclosed in McNitt and Gupta. Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the prior art references. Personal Web Techs. v. Apple, 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Conclusory statements alone, even those provided by a declarant, are inadequate to demonstrate a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings from prior art references. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383. Instead, Petitioner’s arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” Id. (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, but “[w]ithout any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against.” Metalcraft, 848 F.3d at 1367 (“‘[T]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,’ we also recognize that we cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21)).” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the prior art references. Personal Web Techs. v. Apple, 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”). Conclusory statements alone, even those provided by a declarant, are inadequate to demonstrate a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings from prior art references. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383. Instead, Petitioner’s arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” Id. (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We understand that a person of ordinary skill is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, but “[w]ithout any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention, we are left with only hindsight bias that KSR warns against.” Metalcraft, 848 F.3d at 1367 (“‘[T]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,’ we also recognize that we cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention” (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 420–21)). We agree with Petitioner that the cited references do not need to be physically combinable to render claim 1 obvious. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.”); see also In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Obviousness, however, “may not be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Additionally, it is impermissible for Petitioner to “use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Accordingly, Petitioner must set forth clearly in the Petition which references it is relying on for each specific limitation and how those combined teachings would render the challenged claims obvious. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 8,630,726 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,630,726
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.