• Flir Systems, Inc. / Flir Maritime US, Inc. (F/K/A Raymarine, Inc.) v. Garmin Switzerland GmbHSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2018 · IPR2017-00946 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 28, 29, and 45 were held unpatentable; claims 1–7, 12–23, 25–27, and 41–44 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 73 and 74 were allowed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “C. Legal Principles 1. Anticipation A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if “the four corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A single prior art reference may anticipate without disclosing a feature of the claimed invention if such feature is necessarily present, or inherent, in that reference.” Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 754 F.3d 952, 958 (citing Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Moreover, the reference must also “disclose[] within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We analyze the ground based on anticipation in accordance with the above-stated principles.” slip op. at 22

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

    “and agree with Patent Owner that the terms “re-routing the course” and “re-route the course” mean “to change at least a portion of the route of the course relative to a previous routing.” That is, there must be a first routing of a course and that routing must be changed by performance of the marine route calculation algorithm to avoid preselected conditions by identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints. The construction is consistent with the words of the claims. The claims do not merely require routing a course, but “re-routing the course.” The ordinary meaning of the prefix “re” is that something is being done again. See Tr. 18 (Petitioner agreeing that “if you put R-E in front of a word, normally that means it’s occurring a second time”). Although the claims do not explicitly recite both an original “routing” of a course that is changed by “re-routing the course,” the original “routing” is implicitly required by the use of the prefix “re.” See Tr. 34 (Patent Owner agreeing that although the claims do not explicitly require an initial routing, the initial routing is implicit in the use of “re-routing”), 44–45 (Petitioner agreeing that “re-routing” ordinarily implies an initial routing).” slip op. at 10

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

    “proposed construction of “course” as “the path of intended travel of a craft with respect to the earth.” Instead, we need only focus on the words recited in the claim. Claim 1, which is representative, recites that performing the marine route calculation algorithm to “route a course between a first location and the potential waypoint avoiding the preselected conditions,” where such performance includes “identifying one or more non-user selected waypoints.” Ex. 1001, claim 1. The other independent claims recite similar limitations. See Ex. 1001, claims 12, 20, 27. Based on the limitation recited in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of routing a “course” encompasses the identification of one or more non-user selected waypoints between a first location and a potential waypoint. No further construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the person of ordinary skill in the art need not have first-hand experience with marine navigation devices and systems. Pet. Reply 25–26. The ’703 patent explicitly defines “marine navigation” broadly, noting that “the use of the word ‘marine’ in the embodiments of the present invention (including the claims) could be replaced with the phrase ‘non-street based.’” Ex. 1001, 1:57–67 (emphasis added). Such non-street based navigation is broad enough to encompass avionic navigation. See Pet. Reply 25–26; cf. Ex. 1003, 4–7 (demonstrating Dr. Braasch’s experience in avionic navigation). We find that Petitioner’s definition is supported by the testimony of its expert, Dr. Braasch, and, for the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded that the person of ordinary skill in the art necessarily would have had first-hand experience in marine—as opposed to non-street based— navigation. We, therefore, determine, based on the complete record, that Petitioner’s proposed definition correctly states the level of ordinary skill in the art, and we apply it for purposes of this Decision.7, 8” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,268,703 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,268,703
• Daimler AG / Daimler North America Corporation et al. v. Stragent, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2018 · IPR2017-00458 · APJ Carl L Silverman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 over Miesterfeld, Stewart, and Wense; claims 1, 3–7, and 20 are also unpatentable over Posadas, Stewart, and Wense.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner proposes that the term, “sharing the information,” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which Patent Owner argues is “completing delivery to a destination” as information is not “shared” until the information has completed delivery to a destination. PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner contends the claim language and the specification describe the actual delivery of information to the local bulletin board. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:27–31, 12:33–35). Petitioner contends Patent Owner’s proposed meaning is unreasonably narrow and proposes, instead, that the term “should be construed as ‘making the information available to another process,’ consistent with its plain meaning.” Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 29). Petitioner observes the challenged claims do not recite delivery into a second process, and 7 Petitioner refers to the ’843 patent; in context, it is clear the reference is intended to be to the ’705 patent. additionally notes claim 1 of the related ’843 patent merely requires “sharing the information” and it is not until dependent claim 16 of the ’843 patent that “sharing” further includes “providing the information.” Id. Petitioner contends the doctrine of claim differentiation further supports its proposed claim construction. Id. Petitioner contends this claim construction is consistent with the Specification in which information is shared by placing the information on a bulletin board. Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 32). We agree with Petitioner’s claim construction analysis and agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sharing the information” is “making the information available to another process.”” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art “would have at least an undergraduate degree in Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent degree, and at least two years relevant experience in industry.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 48. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Jeffrey A. Miller, Ph.D, asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least the qualifications of or equivalent to either a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with course work or research in embedded networking technologies or an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with at least two years of relevant work experience in industry. Ex. 2004 ¶ 12. Based upon our review of the ’705 patent and the prior art of record, we find Dr. Miller’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art reasonable, and adopt it for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree that Stewart’s memory management techniques are fundamental techniques applicable to shared memory environments and Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In particular, we credit Dr. Koopman’s testimony as being more persuasive than Dr. Miller’s testimony. See Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 59– 62; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97, 98; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30–39.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Patent Owner contends there is no basis for combining Posadas and Stewart to arrive at the invention of claim 1. PO Resp. 27–30 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30, 33). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner provides no explanation why a skilled artisan would have combined Posadas’s blackboard system with Stewart’s non-blackboard system. Id. (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 34– 39). Petitioner contends a blackboard is simply a specific type of shared memory and the operations described by Stewart are fundamental features that could apply to any shared memory environment, e.g., determining whether memory is available before writing is a basic process that is not specific to any memory architecture. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 57–60). According to Petitioner, Stewart’s spin locks were well–known, simple tools to access shared memory and application to Posadas would have been straightforward. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 57–59; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97–99). We agree that Stewart’s memory management techniques are fundamental techniques applicable to shared memory environments and Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In particular, we credit Dr. Koopman’s testimony as being more persuasive than Dr. Miller’s testimony. See Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 59– 62; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97, 98; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30–39.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,209,705 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,209,705
• Bose Corporation v. Freebit AsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2018 · IPR2017-00130 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 7–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Berg, Varming, and Aber; claim 6 is unpatentable as obvious over those references and Marshall.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner and argues that a skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree or master’s degree in audiology or hearing science and at least three years of experience with developing earphone and hearing instrument products.” PO Resp. 26. We do not discern a meaningful difference between the parties’ proposals, and the parties do not contend that any such difference has an impact on this proceeding. In any case, our findings and conclusions are the same under either party’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner’s theory of obviousness, however, is that the prior art renders the challenged claims obvious even under Patent Owner’s narrower constructions. Pet. 37–39; Reply 4. For example, Petitioner argues: What they are saying is that the curvature, this new curvature that they have put into that C-shaped pad has to itself engage and fit closely, in other words touch the concha of the ear. We think that this is a narrow interpretation. When you look at the claim language, we are not really seeing support, Your Honor, for that particular narrow construction. And yet, what we are saying is that nonetheless, if we were to adopt that narrow construction, the prior art renders it obvious. Tr. 7:8–15. Petitioner does not have a theory of obviousness under broader constructions, should we find that the challenged claims are not rendered obvious under Patent Owner’s proposed constructions. Reply 4; Tr. 7:16– 9:2. Accordingly, we evaluate Petitioner’s allegations under Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, and need not determine whether the proper constructions should be broader to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “one problem with each of Mauney, Feldman, and Berg, “Varming does not identify the protrusion intended to penetrate into the ‘void or cavity’ of a user’s ear as a drawback of any one of these three devices.” Reply 6–7. We agree with Petitioner. As to Mauney and Feldman, Varming identifies protrusions that enter the ear canal as problematic because they block ambient sound and perspiration. Ex. 1005, 1:23–27, 2:1–6. As to Berg, Varming states that Berg’s large C-shaped pad interferes with the crus of helix, at least for those users with “a distinct and emphasized Crus of Helix,” causing discomfort or preventing the device from staying fixed in the ear. Id. at 2:20–23. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Varming does not identify interference with the crus of helix at the front of the ear as a problem in any of the three references it discusses in its background. Petitioner also points out that “Varming teaches quite the opposite, because its own device ‘penetrates’ into the void or cavity at the front of a user’s ear.” Reply 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:8–12 (“a first one of the pads being shaped and positioned to fit into the area of the Cymba Concha by penetration from the area below the Inferior Crux of the Antihelix and above the Crus of Helix”), 8:23–25 (“The pads are formed as one penetrating the area in the Cymba Concha from the area below the inferior Crux of the Antihelix and above the Crus of Helix.”)). After considering Varming’s background discussion and the description of its own invention, we are not persuaded that Varming’s discussion of Berg’s interference with the crus of helix refers to interference at the front of the ear. Rather, Varming clearly describes a device that protrudes into the void or cavity at the front of the ear, a fact that undermines Patent Owner’s argument and the testimony of Dr. Staab.” slip op. at 30

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

    “As noted in the Institution Decision, however, Petitioner does not propose simply incorporating groove 18 from Aber into Berg’s C-shaped earpiece. Dec. 22. Cf. In re Mouttet, 686 F. 3d 1322, 1332 (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”). Rather, Petitioner argues that a skilled artisan would have modified Berg’s C-shaped earpiece by adding a groove at the location of the gap specified in Varming. Pet. 31–32. As Dr. Casali observes, “Aber teaches a known alternative feature for accommodating ridges of the outer ear, which include the extension of the crus of helix.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. According to Dr. Casali, “as a result of this modification, the concha-facing contact surface of earpiece 10 would substantially conform to the concha and enable the ear unit to fit closely against the concha when the ear unit is positioned into the ear.” Id. ¶ 71. We find Dr. Casali’s testimony credible and persuasive. As Dr. Casali notes (Ex. 1003 ¶ 71), Berg states that groove 18 partially embracing the crus of helix “assist[s] in firmly retaining the audiophone in place in the ear” and provides “a much greater area of contact between the cap 14 and the ear than is commonly found in devices of this kind, which results in less strain on the ear.” Ex. 1006, 1:75–83. We find that Aber provides a teaching that a groove embracing a ridge of the ear helps hold a device in place in the ear and find that this teaching would have been applicable to Berg’s earpiece. Because the extension of the crus of helix at the location of Varming’s gap is less pronounced than the crus of helix at the front of the ear, a groove at Varming’s gap providing the benefits expressly specified by Aber would be correspondingly less pronounced. Ex. 1003 ¶ 71; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 22–23.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,976,995 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,976,995
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2018 · IPR2017-00001 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham; Petitioner did not show claim 8 unpatentable on that ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction against the prior art than it does to construction of the term itself. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, like Petitioner’s, does not, on its face, exclude RF protocol conversion. In this respect, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is improperly attempting to read in additional limitations that go beyond claim 5’s broad recitation of a “transmitter . . . configured to encode the electrical signal.” See Paper 45, 3. As Petitioner further observes, the Specification of the ’661 patent refers interchangeably to data controller 324 (shown in Figures 3A–3E, not reproduced here) as “data formatter 324” (emphasis added), which “operates to form concise data packets.” Id.; Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 49–51. Petitioner’s proposed construction is thus consistent with the Specification. Patent Owner agrees that data controller 324 “encodes a physical condition into a function code,” but emphasizes that it does so “before getting converted by the RF transmitter.” Paper 44, 3. The distinction Patent Owner relies on to exclude RF protocol conversion from its proposed construction would improperly narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding a limitation that has no express basis in the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969) (“Nevertheless, ‘reading a claim in the light of the specification,’ to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.”). Having thus considered the parties’ positions, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “encoded electrical signal” as “coded information representing the electrical signal generated by the sensor.” We address application of this construction to the prior art in the analysis below.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner does not advocate for a specific level of skill in its Response, but its expert, Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D., articulates a level of skill similar to Petitioner’s proposal. Ex. 2009 ¶ 75. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth opines that a person of ordinary skill “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent and experience with, or exposure to, computer networks and routing.” Id. In addition, according to Dr. Almeroth, a person of ordinary skill “would also have approximately two years of professional experience with computer networking, routing, and wireless networks. Id. And “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Given the similarity of articulations by the respective experts, and because our Decision does not depend on nuanced distinctions of the level of skill in the art, we adopt Dr. Almeroth’s more detailed articulation, but include electrical engineering as an additional alternative educational background, as indicated by Mr. Kinney.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We thus agree with Patent Owner that the rationale articulated by Petitioner is conclusory, and insufficiently supported. PO Resp. 30–31. On the record before us, it is more reasonable to construe “the transceiver identification information” as referring to something other than the identification information for the at least one wireless transmitter. For example, Patent Owner contends that “[o]ne skilled in the art, reading the plain text of claims 5 and 8, would easily recognize that the ‘transceiver’ referred to in claim 8 is the transmitter in claim 5 that is configured to both send and receive signals.” Id. at 33. Patent Owner provides support for this reading both by identifying disclosure in the Specification of the ’661 patent consistent with its position, and through testimony by its expert, Dr. Almeroth. Id. at 33–36 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3C, 3D, col. 6, ll. 3–8, col. 9, ll. 53–56, col. 10, ll. 32–34; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 125–132). For example, Dr. Almeroth testifies that Mason’s AMR server “at most would need only some meter identification number and a meter reading.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 134. We credit this testimony, as well as Dr. Almeroth’s assertion that “[t]ransceiver identification information is extraneous for the needs of the AMR server in Cunningham and Mason.” Id. Ultimately, we need not resolve the construction issues, and the issue of whether claim 8 is indefinite is not before us. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (limiting inter partes review to “a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103”). It is sufficient for us to determine whether Petitioner has put forth sufficient evidence to meet its burden of establishing that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham. In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Petitioner has not.” slip op. at 34

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

    “c. “one or more additional wireless transmitters” Third, Petitioner combines the teachings of Shuey with those of Mason in addressing claim 5’s recitation of “one or more additional wireless transmitters.” Id. at 62–63. The claim requires that each such additional wireless transmitter is “electrically interfaced with a sensor and configured to receive the RF signal and retransmit the RF signal,” i.e., to act as a repeater. Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 22–24. As discussed above, Mason discloses that meter 12D is considered “inaccessible” with respect to node 18, and that another meter within the network may act as a repeater so that the inaccessible meter may still be contacted. Id. at col. 6, ll. 27–35. Petitioner cites Shuey for details regarding the information included in retransmission by meters acting as repeaters, and provides sufficient reason to effect the combination in light of Mason’s explicit reference to Shuey: “A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate into Mason’s system Shuey’s teaching of a repeater that retransmits all of the claimed information, because Mason explicitly notes that Shuey’s system is a system for which Mason’s invention is particularly suited.” Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 6, ll. 35–38; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–112). Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,468,661 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,468,661
• On Semiconductor Corporation / Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (D/B/A On Semiconductor) v. Power Integrations, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2017 · IPR2016-00809 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 31, 32, 34, 38, 39, and 42 are unpatentable as obvious over Oda and Nakamura because the combination teaches the claimed features, including varying pulse frequency and on-time in the second feedback range.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Panels of the Board have interpreted 315(b) (and our associated rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b)) to mean that “it is only privity relationships up until the time a petition is filed that matter.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics 5 Patent Owner entered the Merger Agreement into the record as Exhibit 2018. Corp., Case IPR2012-00042, slip op. at 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2014) (Paper 60); see also ARRIS Group, Inc. v. TQ Delta LLC, Case IPR2016-00430, slip op. at 6 (PTAB July 1, 2016) (Paper 9). Although not the exclusive factor for establishing privity, control of the requested review procedure is an important factor to establish privity in this context. Our Office Patent Trial Practice Guide explains that “[w]hether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding nonetheless constitutes a . . . ‘privy’ to that proceeding is a highly fact-dependent question.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012). “There are multiple factors relevant to the question of whether a non-party may be recognized as a . . . ‘privy.’” Id. “A common consideration is whether the non-party exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding.” Id. However, it is recognized that there is no definitive test regarding the degree of participation required to establish such control and, hence, to establish a privity relationship. Id.” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Similarly, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the Confidentiality Agreement (Ex. 2026) are insufficient to demonstrate that Fairchild exercised, or could have exercised, any control over this proceeding. PO Resp. 65. The mere exchange of unidentified confidential information and recitations of the Confidentiality Agreement that the parties could be joint defendants in the future, without more, do not provide sufficient evidence that Fairchild has exercised, or could have exercised, any control over this proceeding. Thus, the record lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate even the opportunity to control this review and, thus, to establish privity between Petitioner and Fairchild.” slip op. at 13

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

    “In our Decision on Institution, we agreed with Petitioner that nothing in the claims or the specification of the ’079 patent limits the term “energy transfer element” to only transformers in a flyback architecture converter and, more specifically, nothing in the claims defines a particular direction of current flow through the terminals of the power switch. Dec. 15–16. Thus, we determined that, in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation, “energy transfer element” should not be construed so narrowly as to include only a transformer (flyback topology converter) and to exclude an inductor (buck topology converter). Id. at 16. Instead, we determined “energy transfer element” is at least as broad as to encompass either a transformer or an inductor as utilized in flyback and buck architecture power converters, respectively. Id. After considering all evidence and assertions anew, we discern no persuasive reason to alter our preliminary interpretation and conclude, for the reasons given in our Decision on Institution and this Decision, that “energy transfer element” is at least as broad as to encompass either a transformer or an inductor as utilized in flyback and buck architecture power converters, respectively. See id. at 14–16.” slip op. at 20

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

    “Thus, although we discern no need to expressly construe the phrase “corresponds to” as used in the claims, we determine “corresponds to” as used in the claims is at least as broad as to encompass non-overlapping first 9 Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation demands a one-to-one relationship between the feedback values and the pulse on-time values, i.e., a reversible function in mathematical terms. The ’079 patent Specification does not support such a narrow interpretation. and second ranges of feedback values corresponding to first and second ranges of on-time values regardless of overlap of feedback values in the first and second ranges of feedback values.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,212,079 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,212,079
• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 23, 2017 · IPR2016-00623 · APJ James B Arpin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8–12, 14–20, 23–27, and 29–31 are unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds; claims 13 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “of a “clear” channel is “a channel that is not already in use by a non-frequency hopping communications system” and that the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “occupied” channel is “a channel that already is in use by a non-frequency hopping communications system.”” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 3-5 years of academic or industry experience in the wireless communications field.” E.g., 620 Pet. 11 (citing 620 Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–13); see 620 Ex. 1002 ¶ 14. Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Melendez,7 adopt this assessment for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 5–6; Ex. 2001 ¶ 29. We note that both Petitioner’s declarant and Patent Owner’s declarant exceed this assessment (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3–8; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 10–16) and are competent to testify regarding the lower assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and, for purposes of this Final Written Decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt this assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. slip op. at 14

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

    “Id. Thus, Petitioner argues that, because multiple tests must be applied to determine the continued presence of interference regardless of the source, limiting “occupied” to NFH communications systems is overly narrow. Nevertheless, the words chosen by the patentee to describe its invention have significance. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is the applicants’ burden to precisely define the invention, not the PTO’s.”). As noted above, “occupied” is only used in the Specification with respect to NFH communications systems, and neither claims 4 and 19 nor their base claims nor the intervening claims specify a single or multiple tests. Therefore, we find Petitioner’s arguments, which attempt to incorporate the teachings of “bad” and “good” channels from elsewhere in the Specification into the interpretation of these claim limitations, unpersuasive. See Intervet America, Inc. v. Kee-Vet Laboratories, Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.’”); In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).” slip op. at 17

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

    “4. Other Claim Terms For purposes of this Decision, we discern no other claim terms that require express interpretation. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that “claim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting to allow us to construe the terms “occupied” and “clear,” we relied less on Dr. Ding’s testimony regarding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand these terms. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’”). Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see PO Resp. 7.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,873,500 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,873,500
• Blue Coat Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2017 · IPR2016-01444 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing

  Granted Blue Coat’s rehearing request and instituted review of claims 1, 4–6, 9, 12–14, 17, 24, 35, and 37; the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted § 103 grounds.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “reexamination proceeding. Of particular relevance, the reexamination concluded with a Reexamination Certificate issued on November 28, 2016, including a claim for the benefit of the November 8, 1996 filing date of U.S. Provisional Appl. No. 60/030,639 (“the ’639 provisional application”). Ex. 3006 at [60]. In denying the Petition, the Prior Decision noted that “Petitioner has taken no steps to explain or respond to the effect of these developments on its argument.” Dec. 7. This remains true. Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioner that our Prior Decision gave insufficient consideration to the Petition’s assertion that “U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 [(“the ’926 patent”), i.e., an intermediate patent in the priority chain of the ’086 patent] fails to claim priority to the ’639 provisional application and instead the earliest priority document cited in the ’926 patent is [the ’194 patent].” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1012, col. 1, ll. 8–32); see Req. Reh’g 4–5, 6 n.4, 7–9. For a claim of a patent to be entitled to the effective filing date of an earlier filed application, each application in the priority chain must refer to the earlier filed application. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc., 609 F.3d 1345, 1350–52 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Rehearing Request and proceed to the merits of the Petition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “a formally defined safety policy” and allows checking “with certainty, that the proof is valid and hence the foreign code is safe to execute.” Ex. 1004, 107. Thus, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand Necula to teach that its proof-carrying code adds to the foreign code, consistent with the construction of “append” that we apply herein, and Petitioner articulates sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to apply that teaching to Swimmer’s representation of DSP data. See Pet. 46–49. This is not an instance, for example, in which Petitioner relies on a characterization of the problem provided by the patent to derive its reasoning. Cf., e.g., Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Indeed, Patent Owner’s contention that “the storage of the DSP in a database is one of the key features that distinguishes the ‘086 Patent over the prior art” dilutes the strength of its argument. The contrary positions of the parties’ declarants in their testimonial evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact, which we resolve in the light most favorable to Petitioner for purposes of this Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing also with respect to these elements, and that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claims 1 and 9. See infra Section II.E.10 (discussing limits in our weighing of Patent Owner’s Secondary Considerations evidence in this Preliminary Proceeding).” slip op. at 21

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “be considered under 35 U.S.C. § 312 because Petitioner has failed to name all real parties in interest, as required by the statute.” Prelim. Resp. 9. The parties agree that, on June 12, 2016, Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) announced that it was acquiring Petitioner. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 9. The Petition discloses that “[t]he transaction is expected to close in the third quarter of 2016,” and that “[a]s of the filing date of this petition the transaction has not been executed.” Pet. 13. The Petition further represents that “Symantec has not controlled or had the ability to control the filing of this petition, whether through funding or strategy.” Id. As noted above, Petitioner expressly identified Symantec as a real party in interest before any decision on institution of an inter partes review was made. Paper 8, 2. Patent Owner contends that “Symantec had control over the filing of the Petition during the period between the announcement of the acquisition and the closing of the acquisition,” which it asserts occurred on August 1, 2016. Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner also contends that it “understands from the underlying litigation that ‘Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’ no longer exists 1 A petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim of priority for the ’926 patent, claiming the benefit of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/790,097 which was filed January 29, 1997, was dismissed by the Office on June 13, 2017. Exs. 1027, 3007. A renewed petition was filed on June 16, 2017. Ex. 3008. At this time, the Office has not ruled on the renewed petition, and that pending petition accordingly does not affect our determination of the challenged claims’ effective filing date for purposes of this Decision. as an entity, or at least goes by ‘Blue Coat Systems LLC’ for at least the last two months.” Id. at 10. We have reviewed the evidence provided by Patent Owner and find it insufficient to support Patent Owner’s allegation that Petitioner has failed to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a) or 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3). That evidence is, at best, suggestive regarding an issue that is not jurisdictional. Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., Case IPR2015-00739, slip op. (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (Paper 38) (precedential).” slip op. at 9

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

    “1. “Downloadable” Every challenged independent claim recites a “Downloadable,” and Petitioner contends that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ‘downloadable’ includes ‘an executable application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on a destination computer.’” Pet. 15. Petitioner’s proposed construction parallels a statement made in the Specification of the ’194 patent. Ex. 1012, col. 1, ll. 44–47. Patent Owner “does not dispute” this proposed construction, which we adopt for purposes of this Decision. Prelim. Resp. 5. 2. “database” Challenged independent claim 42 recites “a database of Downloadable security profiles.” Petitioner contends that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ‘database’ includes ‘a collection of interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve one or more applications.’” Pet. 15. Patent Owner also “does not dispute” this proposed construction, but argues that “the practical import of Petitioner’s proposed construction for the term ‘database,’ is that log files, such as Swimmer’s audit trail, do not fall within the scope of the claims.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6. That is, Patent Owner contends that “logging functionality is distinct from storing in a database, which allows DSP to be efficiently retrieved from the database,” as compared with the “record-keeping” functionality of an “event log.” Id. at 7. Patent Owner’s argument was considered by the panel in IPR2015- 01892, which concluded that, “[t]o the extent that construction would exclude a log file consisting of an ‘unstructured collection of data on a computer,’ . . . [an] unstructured log file would not be a database,” but the construction does not “necessarily exclude[] all log files from being databases.” 1892 Dec. 16 (emphasis in original). We agree with the reasoning expressed in the Final Written Decision of IPR2015-01892. Id. at 12–17. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,079,086
• Resmed Limited / Resmed Inc., And Resmed Corp v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 9, 2017 · IPR2016-01723 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim under the asserted anticipation or obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute a trial under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We are persuaded there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we do not institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–7, 10 and 11 of the ’345 patent1.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument fails. Prior Board decisions have consistently interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) as not barring inter partes 2 Claims 8 and 9 were disclaimed and have therefore been omitted from this listing. review if the previously filed civil action was dismissed without prejudice, as is the case here. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC, Case IPR2015-00486, slip op. at 6–7 (PTAB Jul. 15, 2015) (Paper 10); Oracle Corp. v. Click-to-Call Techs. LP, Case IPR2013-00312, slip op. at 12–13 (PTAB Oct. 28, 2014) (Paper 52).” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner responds that the “Petition should be denied because it fails to provide the required evidence necessary to establish the prior art status of [the MR810] technical manual.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Patent Owner asserts “[w]hether a reference has been established as prior art is not merely an evidentiary matter, but a substantive element of Petitioner’s prima facie case of invalidity.” Id. Patent Owner responds to the proofs that its own manual was published by April 2004, including the issue date appearing in the Manual itself, by challenging them as “unclear”: In attempting to establish the prior art status of the MR810 Manual, i.e., that it was “published in April 2004,” the Petition purports to rely on an “April 2004” “Date Issued” date corresponding to Revision C on page 6 of the MR810 Manual. Pet. at 6; Ex. 1006 at 6. But it is unclear from the document what this means, or to whom the document was actually “issued.” Id. at 27–28. We do not find this argument, coming from the party that produced the Manual and presumably knows when it was published, to be credible. Instead, on this record, we determine that Petitioner’s showing that the MR810 Manual was published in April 2004 is sufficient at this stage. Nor do we agree with Patent Owner’s suggestion that the determination whether the Manual qualifies as prior art is not “evidentiary.” See Fed. R. Evid. 104(b) (“When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist.”)” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownNo construction neededMixed

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that their construction is correct as to some, but not all challenged claims. Specifically, claim 1 identifies the “heater wire” and “identification elements” as separate elements. “Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct components of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that the ’345 patent specification “consistently teaches that the heater wire is a separate component connected in series with the identification element.” Prelim. Resp. 34–37. As the Federal Circuit said in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015), “[t]he protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation . . . does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation.” (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, the Court stated: “Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude, therefore, that the terms “heater wire” and “identification element” in challenged claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 and 4–7 should be construed as requiring separate elements. Claims 10 and 11 present a different situation. These claims depend from claim 8. That claim, directed to a method for identifying a conduit attached to an apparatus, recites the following step: “attaching a conduit comprising a heater wire including an identification element to said apparatus.” (emphasis added). In the context of these claims, and based on the language of the claims themselves, we conclude that “a heater wire including an identification element” could reasonably be construed to encompass a heater wire that is also the identification element.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,186,345
• Qualcomm Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-01577 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 14, 16, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are unpatentable; claims 3, 15, and 27 were not shown unpatentable, with the specified-vote limitation not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “sequence.” Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding, attests that the phrase is “a well-understood term of art.” Ding Decl. ¶ 35 (citing Ex. 1016, 127–33). Consistent with Dr. Ding’s testimony, we applied a preliminary construction of “hopping sequence” in the Institution Decision as “the order in which the communications network hops among the set of frequencies.” Dec. 7. That construction is not contested by Patent Owner, and we adopt it for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “as disclosed by Gerten’s description of modified frequency hopping schemes. Id. at 14. In doing so, Petitioner notes that Gerten discloses periodic updating of the modified frequency hopping scheme, supporting a conclusion that Gerten discloses selection at different times. Id. at 14, 15– 16. Petitioner highlights this periodic updating to identify distinct “period[s] of time” during which different “set[s] of two or more communications channels [are] used to transmit and receive.” Id. at 15–16 (italics omitted). In addressing independent claim 1’s specific requirement that different sets of channels be used with the second and third communications devices, Petitioner reasons that the process summarized above may be applied by the master device to each of the slave devices separately: “the master device of Gerten performs a service discovery request to determine if each slave device has interference avoidance capabilities.” Id. at 18 (emphasis added) (citing Ding Decl. ¶ 53; Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 38–51). Thus, Petitioner argues, if one slave has such interference avoidance capabilities, communications with that slave may take place using a modified frequency hopping scheme; if another (legacy) slave lacks such interference avoidance capabilities, communications take place using a normal mode with default communications channels that are not changed based on channel performance. Id. at 18 (citing Ding Decl. ¶ 55); see id. at 16–17. Thus, Petitioner concludes, the recited transmissions and receptions from the third communications device over default communications channels occur “while” transmitting to and receiving from the second communications device over the first and second sets of communications channels, as we have construed the term “while.” Petitioner supports this reasoning with testimony by Dr. Ding, which we credit. Id. at 18 (citing Ding Decl. ¶¶ 53– 55).” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “Petitioner further provides persuasive reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the relevant teachings of Gerten and Cuffaro, including that “Cuffaro and Gerten are in the same field of endeavor” of selecting channels to avoid interference in a communications system; that measuring interference signal strength at a slave device such as described by Cuffaro provides a more accurate determination of the impact of the receiver unit from the interference on a given channel, and, therefore, would provide more accurate identification of bad channels in Gerten; and that Gerten suggests such a modification by describing that both a master and a slave can participate in identifying channels to avoid. Pet. 30–31. Petitioner supports this reasoning with declaration testimony by Dr. Ding. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 128, 129.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)). Patent Owner understates the degree to which Petitioner addresses the analogousness of the art by focusing on Petitioner’s contention that Gerten and Cuffaro are in the same field of endeavor. PO Resp. 40 (citing Pet. 30). Petitioner also addresses the second prong of the Clay test by providing reasons why a person of skill in the art would use the transmitted performance data of Cuffaro in the selection process of Gerten, including improved accuracy in determining the impact on the receiver unit from the interference on a given channel. See Pet. 31. We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning and find that Cuffaro and Gerten are analogous art to the claimed invention at least because they are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 14, and 26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gerten and Cuffaro.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,477,624 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,477,624
• Maxlinear, Inc. v. Cresta Technology Corp. And CF Crespe LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 15, 2016 · IPR2015-00594 · APJ Phillip J Kauffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 and 24–29 are unpatentable; claims 18–23 were not shown unpatentable because the § 103(c) safe haven bars the obviousness grounds against them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the burden of persuasion to establish unpatentability is Petitioner’s burden and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See PO Resp. 3–4; 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); Nike, Inc. v. Adidias AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not met the burden of establishing that Favrat is “by another” as required by § 102(e). PO Resp. 4–25. Petitioner responds that Patent Owner is incorrect in that the burden of production has shifted to Patent Owner. Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The shifting burden of production is not applicable to our analysis under § 102(e). See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 2016 WL 3974202, No. 2015-1300, slip op. at 13–18 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Patent Owner here, like the patent owner in Magnum Oil Tools, seeks to disprove Petitioner’s contention. Magnum Oil Tools, slip op. at 16. The inquiry before us is whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Favrat is “by another” as required by § 102(e).” slip op. at 14

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

    “Mr. Mombers, a Group B inventor, testified to the ITC that he conceived of the signal processor of claim 1, the sole independent claim of the ’792 patent, and thus conceived of every claim of the ’792 patent. All of the evidence presented to the ITC that was submitted and argued here is consistent with Mr. Mombers’s assertion. Patent Owner corroborated this testimony by stating that Favrat is prior art under § 102(e), meaning it is “by another.” Considering the entire admissible record, we determine that a 19 In re Land, 368 F.2d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1966), is also distinguishable because the patents were related. preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Favrat is “by another” as required by § 102(e).” slip op. at 23

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

    “Consequently, with regard to claims 3, 6–10, and 12–17, Patent Owner has failed to carry its burden of establishing when the ’792 patent “was made.” As a result, the safe haven of § 103(c) does not apply, and we need not reach the question of common ownership or obligation of assignment as of the filing date of the ’792 patent. b) Claims 18–23 The evidence provided by Petitioner does not address claims 18–23. See Ex. 1212, 5–6. That is, Patent Owner did not assert these claims were conceived and reduced to practice at an earlier date. Given the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the ’792 patent “was made” as of its filing date applies. Our inquiry is then whether as of that date, Favrat and the ’792 patent were “owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.” See 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1). As explained above, Patent Owner asserts, with supporting evidence, that Favrat and the ’792 patent were commonly owned as of the filing date of the ’792 patent. Petitioner provides no evidence to the contrary regarding 23 Petitioner contends, without supporting evidence, that because the references asserted against Patent Owner in the ITC proceeding predated even the May 2001 date, Patent Owner changed to rely upon the filing date of the ’792 patent as the priority date. Pet. Reply 19 n.9. common ownership or evidence of assignment as of the filing date of the ’792 patent. Rather, Petitioner provides argument and evidence regarding common ownership and obligation of assignment for dates prior to the filing date of the ’792 patent. See Pet. Reply 17–24. We need not consider this argument and evidence as it does not pertain to the date at issue (i.e., the filing date of the ’792 patent, which is the date that claims 18–23 were made). In light of this, Patent Owner has demonstrated that claims 18–23 are subject to the safe haven of § 103(c). Consequently a ground of unpatentability based on obviousness may not be asserted against Patent Owner for these claims.” slip op. at 27

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Not reached

    “because it is in response to Patent Owner’s argument in the Response that Favrat is not prior art under § 102(a). See PO Resp. 22 n.2; Paper 71, 1. However, this does not end our inquiry. If the assertion that Favrat is prior art under § 102(a) was required to be in the Petition, then the fact that the issue was raised in Patent Owner’s Response does not cure that oversight. As the Federal Circuit recently emphasized, It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify “with particularity” the “evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) (requiring a petition to specify the specific statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 102). Prior to filing of the instant Petition, Petitioner knew from Patent Owner’s contentions in the ITC proceeding that the safe haven of § 103(c) was a potential issue. See Ex. 1207, 3. Even armed with this knowledge, Petitioner chose not to assert in the Petition that Favrat is prior art under § 102(a). If Petitioner had asserted both § 102(a) and § 102(e), perhaps Patent Owner would have chosen a different response and the evidence in this proceeding would have developed differently. In the particular circumstances of this case, adding consideration of § 102(a) at this late date would deprive Patent Owner of due process. Consequently, we do not consider Petitioner’s contention that Favrat is prior art under § 102(a).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,265,792 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,265,792

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.