• Xilinx, Inc. / Xilinx Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Analog Devices, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2022 · IPR2020-01336 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Oliaei; claims 3, 5, 7, 10–17, and 29 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in its Response. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Peter Kinget, testifies that Petitioner’s proposed level of education and experience for a person of ordinary skill is reasonable. Ex. 2002 ¶ 9. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal because it is consistent with the ’463 patent and the asserted prior art and not disputed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 6

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

    “U.S.C. § 282(b) “including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).1 Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner contends it has construed all claim terms according to this standard, but does not propose any express constructions. See Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20, 22, 134–135). Patent Owner does not expressly address claim construction of any claim terms in its Response. See generally PO Resp. We determine that no formal constructions of any specific terms or words in the claim are necessary in this proceeding.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Overall, we find Dr. Holberg’s testimony particularly telling, and not very persuasive, with respect to combining Oliaei and Vittoz. Dr. Holberg makes clear that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have analyzed Oliaei’s circuit, and in particular any switches that were of concern, before implementing charge injection compensation circuitry. See, e.g., id. at 25:8– 26:22 (Dr. Holberg describing for a pacemaker amplifier circuit he designed “I definitely did a lot of analysis because I had to deal with the DC value, so I did a lot of analysis on the charge injection impact.”). Dr. Holberg did not, however, provide any technical analysis or circuit performance simulations in his original declaration showing that Oliaei would benefit from Vittoz’s charge injection compensation circuitry. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 200–218. Also, in his original Declaration, Dr. Holberg testified that “[a] POSITA could have combined the common-mode circuit and the common-mode feedback circuit of Oliaei with the impedance matching circuit of Vittoz using the known modeling methods disclosed by Vittoz.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 202 (citing Ex. 1012, 101–105, Fig. 7). The mere fact that the prior art reference could be modified does not satisfy the requirements for a finding of obviousness. Indeed, even if Vittoz’s charge injection circuit could be implemented in Oliaei’s CMFB circuit, and “a POSITA would recognize Vittoz’s balancing capacitors and dummy switches would operate in substantially the same way, whether in the system disclosed by Vittoz or the system disclosed by Oliaei,” as Dr. Holberg testifies, this does not explain persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added Vittoz’s charge injection circuitry into Oliaei’s CMFB circuit.” slip op. at 44

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

    “Considering all the evidence of record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not asserted sufficient rationale for the combination of Oliaei and Vittoz. See PO Resp. 51–77; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 71–103. Petitioner alleges similarities between Oliaei and Vittoz and that the resulting combination, based on a desire to compensate for charge injection, would have predictably yielded the claimed system. Pet. 77–81. The arguments and evidence are deficient, however, for several reasons. First, as discussed above, we considered Petitioner’s assertion that a person of skill in the art would consider charge injection as a reason to look to Vittoz. Pet. 77. The evidence from both Dr. Holberg and Dr. Kinget is clear, however, that charge injection is not always necessary or compensated for in every switched capacitor circuit. See, e.g., Ex. 2003, 39:16–18 (Dr. Holberg stating that “I’m sure I’ve never put charge compensation circuitry on every switch. I’m sure of that.”). Second, Petitioner’s evidence including simulations of the combined Oliaei and Vittoz teachings, together with Patent Owner’s simulation evidence, illustrate that there are no clear-cut improvements in Oliaei’s circuit. The experts’ simulations, as a whole, show that by choosing particular parameters Oliaei’s circuit performance might be improved, and choosing other reasonable parameters would not improve circuit performance. With results of the simulations going both ways, the evidence is not persuasive that the combination would have yielded a predictable result. Third, the alleged rationale of adding charge injection compensation does not address sufficiently the reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the relevant teachings of Oliaei and Vittoz. Oliaei expressly discloses that the inventors undertook “numerous” simulations to address issues of clock-feedthrough glitches, i.e., charge injection, and that the results showed no impact of charge injection on system performance. Ex. 1007 5:17–32. Without sufficient explanation, Petitioner and Dr. Holberg have failed to present a persuasive rationale for the alleged combination.” slip op. at 49

  Patent outcomesUS 7,012,463 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,012,463
• Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2022 · IPR2020-01079 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14 are unpatentable over Becker and Kenoyer ’423; claim 6 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The principal difficulty with Patent Owner’s arguments is that they improperly conflate transferring desktop information with the claim’s 4 The ’288 patent instead uses the uncommon acronym “PAUNTSC,” presumably a result of incorrectly printing “L/” as “U.” recitation of “capturing” desktop information. Indeed, Dr. Bhattacharjee concedes that “the desktop information as described in the ’288 patent is transferred in digital form,” even as he maintains his opinion that desktop information is not limited to digital capture by the ’288 patent. Ex. 1020 ¶ 11. There is thus no dispute among the expert witnesses, nor the parties, that the ’288 patent describes the digital transfer of desktop information. As Dr. Bhattacharjee explains, this is a consequence of the fact that “the [’288] patent describes and claims transferring desktop information only after it is encoded.” Ex. 1020 ¶ 12. Because such encoding occurs only after the desktop information is captured, “the captured desktop information could either be digital or analog.” Id. The aspects of the intrinsic record that Patent Owner identifies as supporting its proposed construction are, in fact, consistent with this distinction between capture and transfer. For example, the “advantage of the invention” identified by Patent Owner is specifically described by the ’288 patent as raising clarity on the video communication terminal when “[d]esktop information of a PC is transferred directly in a digital coded bit stream mode without converting digital signal to analog signal.” See Ex. 1001, 2:35–39 (emphasis added). This is, moreover, consistent with the portion of the prosecution history Patent Owner identifies and which also makes clear that “the desktop information of a PC is transferred in a digital coded bit stream.” Ex. 1002, 159 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Bhattacharjee “agree[s] the desktop information as described in the ’288 patent is transferred in digital form,” even though it is not captured in digital form. Ex. 1020 ¶ 11. And although the ’288 patent’s remarks about the “second” prior-art” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “technical dictionary definitions. Id. When deciding to institute this proceeding based on the preliminary record, we declined to adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which was also not adopted by the district court in the related litigation. Dec. 12. The parties have not revisited this preliminary determination during the trial and we see no compelling reason to reach a different determination based on the full record. We according construe “bit stream” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning as a stream of bits.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Both proposals appear reasonable on the record before us. Although we invited the parties “to address whether material differences exist between their respective proposals and what impact, if any, the different proposed levels have on the obviousness analysis,” neither party has done so. See Dec. 11 n.3. We apply the proposal articulated by Patent Owner, but we would reach the same conclusions under either proposal.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “skill in the art] would be motivated to combine even when bandwidth is shared”: (1) “the shared nature of the bandwidth only highlights that reduced bandwidth usage for desktop information provides the capability of a higher quality signal for the live stream without any extra costs in components or processing”; (2) because Kenoyer ’423 “does not disclose using a dedicated or fixed amount of bandwidth . . . , any reduction in bandwidth would reduce overall usage”; and (3) “even in a dedicated environment, Kenoyer ’423’s reduced bandwidth needs for desktop information would reduce the amount of dedicated bandwidth that is required, potentially saving costs or power.” Reply 12 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 31–32). These reasons are directly responsive to arguments raised by Patent Owner in its Response and are therefore properly considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). We also find such reasons, which are supported by additional testimony by Dr. Bhattacharjee, adequately explain how Patent Owner’s distinction is accommodated within Petitioner’s expressed rationale of “minimizing bandwidth usage.” See Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 31–32. Second, Patent Owner contends that, if “Kenoyer ’423 were interpreted as teaching reducing bandwidth, it does so in a different manner than in Becker.” PO Resp. 37. Specifically, “Becker addresses bandwidth reduction by using signal compression techniques,” Patent Owner says, while “Kenoyer ’423 prevents the increase in bandwidth . . . by dynamically sharing bandwidth when both a live view of the presenter and the presenter’s computer screen are being shared.” Id. Dr. Bhattacharjee disputes this distinction by observing that Kenoyer ’423’s technique still “reduces the number of bits required to convey the same video information,” and is thereby broadly encompassed as a form of “signal compression.” Ex. 1020 ¶ 33. Dr. Rosing does not specifically disagree with Dr. Bhattacharjee’s characterization. See generally Ex. 2022 ¶ 99. Regardless, both Becker and Kenoyer ’423 support Petitioner’s rationale of “minimizing bandwidth usage.” Patent Owner inadequately explains how a distinction in the precise manner that might be accomplished by the two references diminishes the support provided by the rational underpinnings identified by Petitioner. See PO Resp. 37 (Patent Owner making the conclusory statement that “[a]s such, Petitioner fails to provide a valid motivation for combining Becker and Kenoyer ’423”).” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,609,288 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,609,288
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Huawei Digital Technologies (Cheng Du) Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2022 · IPR2020-01130 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8 and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Dubrovsky and Dubrovsky with Campbell, respectively; claims 1–7 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “request in Petitioner’s Moshchuk-Gribble combination is a URL for an HTML root page, neither the Content-Type field of the HTTP header nor the URL extension would indicate whether the requested Web page contained executable content. PO Resp. 10–16. Dr. Davis provides credible testimony that because, in Moshchuk, the file that is provided in response to the request is an HTML root page, the HTTP header for the file would have merely indicated that the returned file is an HTML file, which is not a file type associated with being an executable, and would not have indicated whether the file contains active or passive content. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 94–100. Similarly, Dr. Davis provides credible testimony that “[a] POSITA would have known that the URL for an HTML file would have generally included an extension of .html or .htm” and that such extensions would not have been associated with executables. Id. at ¶ 106. Thus, Dr. Davis concludes “[t]he resulting Moshchuk-Gribble combination therefore would not have been able to determine if a requested Web page was an active page or a passive page based on the analysis of the URL.” Id. at ¶ 107.” slip op. at 36

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “The contentions from the Petition, taken together with Dr. Nielson’s initial testimony and the underlying disclosure from Gribble show that the Petition relies specifically on examining Gribble’s content-type HTTP header to determine whether the associated file is an executable. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments in the Reply Brief relying on file headers generally, or those relying on other types of headers, such as the HEAD section or element, or other fields of the HTTP header, such as the Content-Script-Type field, are new arguments not presented in the Petition. Because these arguments were not raised in the Petition, it is impermissible to raise them in the Reply Brief. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide3 at 73–75.” slip op. at 33

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

    “Based on the evidence of record and the parties’ arguments, we are persuaded by Petitioner that the Dubrovsky-Campbell combination teaches the limitations of claim 9. Initially, we note that we agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to look to known ways of identifying file types, such as Campbell’s method of examining the file extension and the file header. We give credit to Dr. Nielson’s testimony in this regard that both Dubrovsky and Campbell recognize that executables were a frequent source of malware but that Dubrovsky does not provide specific details regarding how a file would be determined to be executable. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 404–405. Because Campbell does provide these details, Dr. Nielson credibly testifies that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combined Campbell’s techniques of identifying executables with Dubrovsky. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 404–406. We agree with Petitioner that Campbell teaches that a file’s header can be used to determine that the file is an executable. Campbell teaches that spyware contains certain patterns that can be used to identify the nature of the file. Ex. 1013, 5:9–12. Campbell provides an example of a .CAB file that includes a header having a certain format. Id. at 5:12–13. Campbell explains that spyware scanners have access to spyware signature lists that can be compared with characteristics of spyware headers to identify spyware so that the spyware can be blocked. Id. at 13–24.” slip op. at 61

  Patent outcomesUS 10,027,693 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,027,693
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Asus Computer International, Inc. v. James B. GoodmanSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 29, 2019 · IPR2017-02021 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 10, and 16 are unpatentable over Ooishi and Palaniswami, with Abe added for claims 10 and 16; claims 2–4, 6–9, and 11–15, 17–20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “reasonable construction consistent with the Specification of a control device “for selectively electrically isolating said memory devices from respective address lines and respective control lines so that when said memory devices are electrically isolated, any signals received on said respective address lines and respective control lines do not reach said memory devices” as recited in independent claims 1 and 10 requires that the control device electrically isolate the memory devices from all address and control lines that communicate with the memory devices.10” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’315 patent (a “POSITA”) would have had, inter alia, a bachelor’s degree in electrical, electronics, computer engineering; or the equivalent training, and would have had approximately 2 to 3 years of experience in computer systems, circuits, electronics, or a related discipline. Pet. 9; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–30. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill. See PO Resp. 8. Based on our review of the ’315 patent, the cited prior art, and Dr. Wolfe’s testimony, we determine a specific finding regarding ordinary skill level is not required as the prior art reflects an appropriate level. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”). However, to the extent a specific finding regarding the level of skill is required, we find Petitioner’s articulation of a person of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the teachings of the prior art and adopt Petitioner’s description of a POSITA as someone who “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical, electronics, or computer engineering; or the equivalent training, and would have had approximately two to three years of experience in computer systems, circuits, electronics, or a related discipline.” See Pet. 9.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). A reference is deemed publically accessible upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence can locate it. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Petitioner asserts JESD21-C was published January 1997 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 37–38. As support, Petitioner relies upon the Declaration of John J. Kelley (“the Kelley Declaration”), the current President of the Solid State Technology Association of the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (“JEDEC”). See Ex. 1007 ¶ 2. Mr. Kelly states that JEDEC specification JESD21-C, Configurations for Solid State Memories, Release 7 (January 1997), a copy of which is attached to his declaration as Exhibit 17, “was made publicly available in January 1997.” Id. ¶¶ 4, 7. Mr. Kelley testifies that in January 1997 copies of the entire JESD21-C volume “would . . . have been available for purchase by anyone in the public” and that “pages comprising the specifically updated modules would have been sent to those who subscribed to the annual updating service for JESD21-C.” Id. ¶ 6. Patent Owner does not dispute that JESD21-C qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See PO Resp. 7. Based on the current record, we determine JESD21-C qualifies as a prior art printed publication under § 102(b).” slip op. at 19

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Dell discloses a control device that electrically isolates the memory devices as required under the claim construction set forth above in devices even when the devices are in a low-power or self-refresh mode, Petitioner has not shown that Dell’s memory devices are electrically isolated from “respective control lines” such that “any signals received on said . . . respective control lines do not reach said memory devices” as required by claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’315 patent is unpatentable over Dell or that claim 10 is unpatentable over the combined teachings of Dell and Abe.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,243,315 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,243,315
• Maxlinear, Inc. v. Cresta Technology Corp. And CF Crespe LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 17, 2019 · IPR2015-00592 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–3, 5, and 10–20 are unpatentable by collateral estoppel; claims 4, 6–9, and 21 were not shown unpatentable because the combination rationale was insufficient.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “After this proceeding was remanded by the Federal Circuit, we invited the parties to address a proposed procedure that would include additional briefing regarding the impact of the prior holdings that claims 1–3, 5, and 10–20 are unpatentable, and the parties filed their respective proposals. Papers 78–80. In its proposal, Petitioner suggested that Patent Owner “has waived the right to address the patentability of claims 4, 8, and 9” because “Patent Owner never separately argued for the patentability of these claims.” Paper 79, 1; see MaxLinear, 880 F.3d at 1378 n.4 (“On remand, the Board may consider whether CRESPE has waived arguments concerning these claims.”). But those claims were not challenged in the earlier proceedings that held claims 1–3, 5, and 10–20 unpatentable. Rather, those claims were only challenged in this proceeding with respect to art that was not at issue in the earlier proceedings. In advancing its contention, Petitioner effectively makes the untenable argument that Patent Owner must provide separate reasons for the patentability of claims 4, 8, and 9, even when we determine that its own case-in-chief for those claims is insufficient. In addition, Petitioner’s proposal requests briefing on the issues of “whether claims 6, 7 and 20 materially alter the [unpatentability] analysis on which the prior [unpatentability] determinations rested.” Id. We have considered, and deny, that request. The Federal Circuit’s remand order noted that the fact that “MaxLinear was not a party to the other IPRs is . . . irrelevant since Cresta, the predecessor in interest to CRESPE, was party to the original determination.” MaxLinear, 880 F.3d at 1377. But the Federal Circuit’s order does not state or suggest that the fact that different prior art was considered in the earlier proceedings is similarly irrelevant. Indeed, we agree with Patent Owner that “[t]he Federal Circuit has not ordered the Board and the parties to start over from scratch, and certainly not with new prior art.” Paper 80, 3; see Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The Board may control its own proceedings, consistent with its governing statutes, regulations, and practice.”). Patent Owner is correct that “[a]llowing new prior art to be considered on remand after the Final Decision on the merits would essentially be starting a new IPR proceeding.” Paper 80, 9. As Patent Owner asserts, “[t]he parties and the Board would have to argue and consider new grounds, new expert testimony would have to be taken and presented, and a new Final Decision would have to be rendered.” Id. The Federal Circuit’s instruction is limited: “We remand this case to the Board so that it may consider the patentability of the surviving disputed dependent claims 4, 6-9, and 21.” MaxLinear, 880 F.3d at 1378. We have complied with this instruction in two ways: first, by applying the Federal Circuit’s instruction regarding the collateral-estoppel impact on challenged claims 1–3, 5, and 10–20; and, second, by clarifying that Petitioner’s argument regarding the combination of Van De Plassche and Ishikawa compels a conclusion that Petitioner’s showing is insufficient with respect to claims 4, 6–9, and 21, independent of any conclusion previously reached with respect to independent claims 1 and 17. While the Federal Circuit includes language in its remand order that might be construed as suggesting applying different prior art in the latter analysis, 880 F.3d at 1377, the scope of this proceeding is limited by the prior art and the arguments in the Petition here. SAS Institute, 138 S. Ct. at 1356 (“in an inter partes review the petitioner is master of its complaint”); see Paper 80, 8 (Patent Owner addressing potential ambiguity of Federal Circuit’s instruction).” slip op. at 35

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Experience is but one of several factors that may be considered when determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (identifying factors as 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 a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may predominate.” Id. Patent Owner’s distinction relates to a portion of one factor (education) in a determination that involves several factors. The significance of the level of ordinary skill in the art is the role it plays in an obviousness analysis. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry”). Patent Owner does not explain persuasively how the alleged omission by Petitioner impacts the obviousness analysis. We conclude that Petitioner’s proposed definition, which is consistent with the level of skill generally reflected by the prior art of record, reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Importantly, we find that Patent Owner did not exhaust avenues available to it in attempting to secure answers to its questions from Dr. Hashemi. The line of questioning involving Exhibit 2008 occurred late in the day, “well after the close of business on the east coast,” and an attempt by the parties to telephone the Board during the deposition was unsuccessful. See Opp. 3; Ex. 2006, 154:24–155:4. The parties discussed contacting the Board the following day, and continuing the deposition the day after that, when Petitioner would make Dr. Hashemi available for further cross-examination after receiving guidance from the Board. Ex. 2006, 155:5–157:13. Rather than proceed in this fashion, Patent Owner decided to abandon the line of questioning and passed the witness for redirect: “I think after we talked about it a bit, I think we will withdraw our questions on this document and just move on to redirect.” Id. at 157: 22–25 (emphasis added). Dr. Hashemi could have answered the questions and sought a protective order that would insulate his answers from the public record, providing the Board with the information needed to perform a focused evaluation of the credibility and reliability of specific statements in his testimony. But a significant measure of responsibility for whether Dr. Hashemi’s testimony is tainted with bias lies with Patent Owner for declining to pursue the issue to a point of greater clarification. Indeed, we are limited in how strongly we can fault Petitioner for failing to submit a clarifying declaration from Dr. Hashemi, in light of Patent Owner’s decision to “withdraw” the questions at issue. Because the evidence is insufficiently developed, we are similarly limited in the degree to which we can draw adverse inferences from Dr. Hashemi’s refusal to answer questions, and unable to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Dr. Hashemi’s testimony is tainted by an undisclosed bias. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Not reached

    “C. Petitioner’s Motion to File Supplemental Information Pursuant to our authorization, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File Exhibits 1213–17 as Supplemental Information, which Patent Owner opposes. Papers 83, 86. The Motion asserts that such information is “relevant to the issues in the case, specifically the lack of nexus between any purported secondary consideration, including surprising or unexpected results.” Paper 83, 1. We do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding secondary considerations because we conclude that Petitioner’s case-in-chief is insufficient. Accordingly, we dismiss the Motion as moot.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,075,585 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,075,585
• HP Inc. v. James B. GoodmanSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2019 · IPR2017-01994 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 10 and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Schaefer, Qureshi, and Mazur; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable over Schaefer and Qureshi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’315 patent (a “POSITA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical, electronics, or computer engineering, or the equivalent training or experience in electrical, electronics, or computer engineering, or a related discipline, and would have had approximately 2 to 3 years of experience in computer systems, circuits, electronics, or a related discipline. Pet. 16. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bagherzadeh, generally agrees with this proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, but states that a POSITA would have had two or more years of experience in computer hardware, including the use of computer memory, and that the two or more years of experience would provide practical experience required to address issues such as low power backup for volatile memories. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in its Response. See PO Resp. 8. Based on our review of the ’315 patent, the cited prior art, and Dr. Bagherzadeh’s testimony, we determine a specific finding regarding ordinary skill level is not required as the prior art reflects an appropriate level. However, to the extent a specific finding regarding the level of skill is required, we adopt Dr. Bagherzadeh’s description of a POSITA as it is consistent with the teachings of the prior art. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32.” slip op. at 10

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

    “determine the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification of a control device “for selectively electrically isolating said memory devices from respective address lines and respective control lines so that when said memory devices are electrically isolated, any signals received on said respective address lines and respective control lines do not reach said memory devices” as recited in independent claims 1 and 10, requires that the control device electrically isolate the memory devices from all address and control lines that communicate with the memory devices. The plain language of the claims requires that the selected memory devices are electrically isolated from their respective address and control lines. Ex. 1001, 13:26–28, 14:11–18. In accordance with the plain and ordinary meaning, the reference in claim 1 to “respective address lines” and “respective control lines” is inclusive of all such lines for the selected memory device. We further find that a claim construction limited to isolating all of a selected memory device’s address and control lines is consistent with the purpose of such isolation expressed in claims 1 and 10, i.e. “so that when said memory devices are electrically isolated, any signals received on said respective address lines and said respective control lines do not reach said memory devices.” Id. at 13:27–30, 14:15–18 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 14

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

    “with Qureshi because the functional electronic modules of Schaefer and Qureshi are configured to work together during testing of Schaefer’s DRAMs using Qureshi’s memory controller. Pet. 17; Ex. 1002 ¶ 48. Indeed, even Patent Owner admitted on the preliminary record that “[t]here is no dispute that Schaefer and Qureshi can be combined.” Prelim. Resp. 4; see also id. at 4–5 (arguing patentability of claims 10 and 16 over Schaefer, Qureshi, and Mazur by stating that although “[t]here is no dispute that Schaefer and Qureshi can be combined” . . . “Petitioner has failed to provide a technical argument for combining Mazur with the combination of Schaefer and Qureshi”). We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and argument, including the testimonial evidence of Dr. Bagherzadeh, and agree with Petitioner. We find that a POSITA would have utilized Qureshi’s memory controller for initiating a low power self-refresh mode during testing of Schaefer’s SDRAM to ensure that data is retained during testing. See Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1002 ¶ 50.” slip op. at 25

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

    “For the foregoing reasons, we find that the combination of Schaefer, Qureshi, and Mazur teach each of the limitations of claim 10 and that Petitioner has sufficiently articulated reasons with rational underpinning for why a POSITA would have combined the teachings of Schaefer, Qureshi, and Mazur to arrive at the claimed subject matter of claim 10. Accordingly, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 10 is unpatentable under § 103 over Schaefer, Qureshi, and Mazur. G. Asserted Obviousness of Dependent Claim 16 over Schaefer, Qureshi, and Mazur Claim 16, which depends from claim 10, requires that the memory devices are DRAM semiconductor chips. We agree with Petitioner’s undisputed argument and evidence that the memory chips taught in both Schaefer and Qureshi are synchronous dynamic random access memory (SDRAM), which is a type of DRAM, and that Mazur teaches DRAM memory devices. Pet. 30, 50–51; Ex. 1003, 2:33–35; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65, 83. Accordingly, for these reasons as well as the reasons given in our analysis of independent claim 10 above, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 16 is unpatentable over Schaefer, Qureshi, and Mazur.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,243,315 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,243,315
• Technical Consumer Products, Inc. / Nicor Inc. et al. v. Lighting Science Group Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 31, 2018 · IPR2017-01280 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–24 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 3 and 4 were not shown unpatentable over Zhang, Soderman, and Silescent.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “(collectively, “Lead Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,967,844 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’844 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Patent Owner, Lighting Science Group Corp. (“Patent Owner”), did not file a Preliminary Response to the Petition. We determined that the information presented in the Petition established that there was a reasonable likelihood that Lead Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–24 of the ’844 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted this proceeding on November 1, 2017, as to claims 1–5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–24 of the ’844 patent. Paper 10 (“Dec. on Inst.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The parties’ definitions of the level of skill differ in minor respects, including the number of years of experience and whether or not a 5 Patent Owner has not put forth any evidence or argument related to secondary considerations of nonobviousness. background in chemical engineering should be included. At his deposition, Dr. Bretschneider testified that he included a degree in chemical engineering in his definition because that degree confers expertise in heat transfer. Ex. 1023, 37:14–22. We find this testimony persuasive. Regarding the difference in years of experience, both declarants agree that three years of experience is appropriate. For these reasons, we define the person of ordinary skill in the art as having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, physics, or a related field and three years of experience in designing LED lighting products or fixtures. We are satisfied that this definition comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’844 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 8–9), however, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have read Chou as narrowly as Patent Owner contends. Not only does Chou state that its fixture “may be configured to be installed into a recessed can housing having other geometries,” but also “recessed housings . . . developed with different geometries.” Ex. 1012, 3:65–4:7 (emphasis added). In light of this express teaching in Chou, we do not agree that Chou’s teachings are confined to 5- and 6-inch can lights, or even can lights in general. Junction boxes represent another geometry that can serve as a recessed housing for an LED light fixture. See Ex. 1023, 30:17–31:7 (Dr. Bretschneider testifying that, by 2009, LED light fixtures attached to junction boxes were known with “certain parts” inside the box). In addition, the fact that certain figures of Chou might depict a junction box external to a can light does not mean that junction boxes are excluded from the universe of “recessed housings” contemplated in the quotation above. In addition, Patent Owner contends Petitioner has provided no reason or motivation to combine Wegner with Chou. PO Resp. 10–11. Patent Owner also contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have combined Wegner with Chou because Wegner pertains to a light with a tall reflector, which must be installed in a can light fixture (and not a junction box). Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 74–75, 133–137). Yet Petitioner only cites Wegner for its teaching of removing an Edison base from an LED light fixture to facilitate direct wiring, and not for anything to do with reflectors. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 53; Ex. 1016, 11:3–32). As such, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Wegner’s light reflectors amounts to a bodily incorporation argument, which is not the test for obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.”). We are persuaded that, based on Wegner, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known to remove the Edison base of Chou’s fixture regardless of the type of reflector and housing used in Wegner’s fixture. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Regarding motivation, Petitioner posits a market-based rationale, namely, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make a version of Chou’s luminaire to fit nominally sized junction boxes to serve the new construction market. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54). Dr. Coleman testifies that the Edison base would have been removed to make Chou’s luminaire work in a junction box. Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan wanting to modify Chou for use in junction boxes would have known to make this modification.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,967,844 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,967,844
• EMC Corporation / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2018 · IPR2017-00439 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–6, 8, 9, 13, 15–18, 20, and 21 are unpatentable over Carter; claims 5 and 17 are also obvious over Carter and Pitzel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Patent Owner regarding the ordinary meaning of the term “respectively.” Specifically, we understand that the word “respectively” can be an adverb that means “for each separately or in turn, and in the order mentioned.” The use of “respectively” as an adverb in the English language requires parallelism. See Ex. 3002. In other words, there must be a direct one-to-one correspondence and specific referents must be individually identified before there can be a “parallel list” of attribute values applicable to each, in that order. The term “respectively” also can be an attributive adjective that means “concerning or appropriate to each of several individually.” Id. In the present case, the term “respectively” appears to modify “the selected distributed devices.” Because specific referents are not individually identified, we understand the term to act as an attributive adjective modifying each of several selected distributed devices. Although we agree with Patent Owner regarding the use of the term “respectively,” we do not understand its use to require “the selected distributed devices to cause each selected distributed device to separately appear to network-connected user devices as a dedicated NAS device.” We cannot construe individual terms in isolation. Rather, we must consider claims as a whole in view of the specification. Specifically, we must consider the implications of other terms recited in claims 1 and 13 (e.g., “location information”) and how the claims are supported by the disclosed embodiments.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contests Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, specifically arguing that “Petitioners’ proposed requirements especially with regard to work experience, are higher than can be reasonably supported.” PO Resp. 5. Patent Owner notes that Petitioners’ declarant, Dr. Kubiatowicz, testified on cross-examination that “somebody coming directly out of college, likely, would need a couple of extra years to understand this,” and that “a little bit of professional experience might help them -- would help them understand the details involved in this case.” Id. (citing Ex. 2002, 25:13–14; 26:2–5). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Shenoy, testified that, “at the time of the ’827 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art should have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent, with 1–2 years of work experience in the field of computer networking, storage systems, or a related field.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 19. According to Dr. Shenoy, “[l]ack of experience can be remedied by additional education or vice versa.” Id. Based on our review of the ’827 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’827 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Kubiatowicz and Dr. Shenoy, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, specifically that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent, with 1–2 years of work experience in the field of computer networking, storage systems, or a related field.” See id. We also determine that such a person would have been familiar with computer systems architecture and design, and would have been aware of design trends relating to distributed processing systems.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Despite Patent Owner’s arguments, we find that Carter’s policy element 290 (a software module) is configured to assess unused or under-utilized storage resources in selected distributed devices of the plurality of distributed devices. We understand policy element 290 to satisfy this limitation because Carter specifically discloses that policy element 290 “acts as a controller to determine the availability of resources, such as printer capabilities, hard-disk space, available RAM and other such resources.” Ex. 1140, 36:27–29 (emphases added). We credit the testimony of Dr. Kubiatowicz, who during his deposition stated, “I would say this policy controller certainly can evaluate the hard disk space on the local node, but could also potentially evaluate storage throughout the system by communicating with other nodes.” Ex. 2002, 86:13–16; see id. at 88:5–7; see also id. at 88:12–16 (“What I said was that this policy element is determining the availability of resources. So it’s assessing whether or not hard disk space of various sorts is available. So it’s availability, not just available.”); see id. at 88:18–89:18, 90:5–91:1. We further credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Shenoy, who testified that Carter discloses “determin[ing] the free volume space available for allocation.” See Ex. 1144, 142:19–20 (referencing Ex. 1140, 19:14–17). Reading directly from Carter, Dr. Shenoy further testified that Carter discloses “request[ing] the total available space information and us[ing] this information to quickly determine whether to proceed with the allocation processing.” Id. at 142:14–17, 143:1617. In view of the explicit disclosure of Carter and the testimony of both declarants, we find that Carter’s controller performs an “assessment” in order to “determine the availability of resources.” Additionally, Carter states that policy controller 290 “can employ any of the suitable heuristics to direct the elements, such as the paging controller, disk directory manager, and other elements to dynamically distribute the available resources.” Ex. 1140, 36:29–37:2. Thus, we agree with Petitioner’s argument, as supported by the testimony of Dr. Kubiatowicz, that policy element 290 assesses the unused or underused storage resources when it determines the availability of such resources and uses some heuristics when distributing those resources that were assessed. See Pet 39 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 118). Accordingly, based on the entirety of the record before us, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Carter discloses the “assessing” limitations of claims 1 and 13.” slip op. at 31

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to offer sufficient explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Carter and Condor. Rather, Petitioner appears to argue that, based on the advantages described by Condor (Ex. 1017, 5), and using well-known techniques with unspecified predictable results, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient reason to combine these disparate elements taught in the prior art references to render the challenged claims obvious. Pet. 61–66. Yet, other than Petitioner’s cursory assertion of “advantageously incorporat[ing] the central coordinator in Condor to provide a centralized mechanism to manage resource sharing” (Pet. 66), which cites equally cursory and unsupported testimony by Dr. Kubiatowicz (Ex. 1102 ¶ 199), Petitioner fails to identify what particular advantages or efficiencies would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Condor’s scheduler with Carter’s system. Furthermore, Dr. Kubiatowicz’s testimony regarding predictable results and obviousness to try are similarly lacking in elaboration and substantiation. See Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 200–201. Such conclusory statements and unspecific testimony without evidence on the record cannot satisfy the Petitioner’s burden of demonstrating obviousness. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016); I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc., 576 F. App’x 982, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The testimony of the Defendants’ expert amounts to a ‘mere conclusory statement’ that may not serve as a basis for finding the asserted claims obvious.”); see also InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that expert’s testimony could not support a finding of obviousness where “testimony primarily consisted of conclusory references to [the expert’s] belief that one of ordinary skill in the art could combine these references, not that they would have been motivated to do so”); see also 37 C.F.R. 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Although Petitioner has not provided a sufficient rationale to combine in this asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner has otherwise demonstrated that claims 4, 6, 16, and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because they are anticipated by Carter. Petitioner, however, has not asserted claims 7 and 19 are unpatentable under any other ground in this proceeding. Therefore, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 7 and 19 of the ’827 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Carter and Condor.” slip op. at 59

  Patent outcomesUS 8,275,827 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,275,827
• 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
• Qualcomm Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-01580 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 6, 8, 17, 18, and 20 are unpatentable; claims 7 and 19 were not shown unpatentable because Cuffaro does not disclose a specified number of votes and the obviousness testimony was insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “After institution, Qualcomm Inc. filed substantially the same petition in IPR2015-01580 (IPR2015-01580, Paper 1), together with a Motion for Joinder of IPR2015-01580 with the instant proceeding (IPR2015-01580, Paper 2). On September 17, 2015, we granted a motion to terminate this proceeding with respect to MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc., but not as to Patent Owner, leaving only Patent Owner as a party to the proceeding. Paper 22. On November 16, 2015, we granted Qualcomm Inc.’s Motion for Joinder, joining Qualcomm Inc. to the instant proceeding. Paper 23. Qualcomm Inc. (“Petitioner”) is now the sole petitioner.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “phrase “means for . . . .” Petitioner construes these terms in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, identifying an algorithm described in the specification corresponding to each “means” limitation. Pet. 7–9 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 8, l. 8–38, col. 8, ll. 49–col. 9, l. 16, col. 19, l. 25–col. 20, l. 67). Petitioner identifies a general purpose computer, processor 704 in Figure 7, as structure for “executing the instructions associated with the corresponding function” recited in each “means limitation,” except for the “means fro [sic] the first participant to communicate . . .” recited in claims 5 and 20. Pet. 7–9 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 7, col. 25, ll. 13–18). For the “means fro [sic] the first participant to communicate” limitation, Petitioner identifies transceiver 216, shown in Figure 2, reproduced supra. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 2, col. 9, ll. 54–59). Patent Owner does not contest these identifications. We agree with Petitioner’s identifications and adopt them as our constructions of the means-plus-function limitations. Specifically, as to those means-plus-function limitations that correspond to processor 704 in Figure 7, Petitioner identifies in its claim chart the algorithm described in the specification for performing each function of these means. Pet. 8–9; See also Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“When dealing with a ‘special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation,’ [the Federal Circuit] require[s] the specification to disclose the algorithm for performing the function.”); Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]hen a computer is referenced as support for a function in a means-plus-function claim, there must be some explanation of how the computer performs the claimed function.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are not persuaded by this reasoning. As Petitioner observes, the embodiments of the ’624 patent identified by Patent Owner are characterized as “examples,” and a person of ordinary skill “would understand that the example scenarios of the specification are not necessarily limiting on the claims.” Reply 3 (citing Ding Supp. Decl. ¶ 6). In addition, Petitioner notes that claim language in related patents owned by Patent Owner explicitly refers to participants, evidencing Patent Owner’s understanding “how to expressly create participant-specific voting requirements in claims.” Id. at 3. At the oral hearing, Patent Owner suggested that explicit reference to participants in such other claim language “was because it wanted to clarify that each participant got a single vote,” and explained its position that, in the claims at issue in this proceeding, “participant is implicit in the claim language as it is.” Tr. 78:16–25. But the claims are directed to a “communications apparatus,” and recite “votes” in the context of what the “particular communications channel” “receives.” Nothing within the structure of the claims requires resolving the origin of such votes. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the construction it agreed to before the district court in the Qualcomm Litigation. In that litigation, the parties agreed that the term “vote” should be construed as “a binary expression (to use or not to use),” a construction that makes no reference to the origin of the “vote” as from a participant or otherwise. Ex. 1014, 6. We see no compelling reason to excuse the inconsistency by adopting a narrower construction when the Board applies a claim-construction standard (broadest reasonable interpretation) that could only result in the same or a broader construction. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A patent may not, like a ‘nose of wax,’ be twisted one way to avoid anticipation and another to find infringement.” (quoting Sterner Lighting, Inc. v. Allied Elec. Supply, Inc., 431 F.2d 539, 544 (5th Cir. 1970))). Accordingly, we construe “votes to use a particular communications channel” as “expressions of preference for using the particular communications channel.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner responds that “the Gerten device is not capable of and expressly teaches away from performing this functionality.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Melendez Decl. ¶ 33). Patent Owner contends that “Gerten’s disclosure is directed toward eliminating channels for use in an entire piconet as opposed to eliminating channels for use by certain participants within a piconet.” Id. at 16 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that Gerten does not disclose a selection kernel capable of maintaining synchronization between a master and more than one slave in a piconet, with the master and one slave using a default set of channels while the same master and a different slave use a different set of channels. Id. We are not persuaded that the absence of a specific teaching of such a selection kernel supports the conclusion that one of skill in the art would understand Gerten to function in the manner Patent Owner suggests. In this instance, Petitioner refers to two embodiments of Gerten “in which a first participant communicates with a second participant via a normal sequence and with another participant via an adaptive hopping sequence.” Reply 5. First, Figure 3 of Gerten is reproduced below. Figure 3 illustrates “methodology for determining and communicating channels to be avoided to a remote device.” Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 4–6. As illustrated in the drawing, a master unit performs a discovery process (block 110) upon connecting with a new slave unit. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 60, 64. If the slave unit is capable of using interference avoidance, the master unit begins the process of determining a modified set of channels for use (block 120). Id. ¶ 45. If a second slave unable to use interference avoidance enters the piconet, standard frequency hopping is used. Supp. Ding Decl. ¶ 9. Under Patent Owner’s characterization of Gerten, entry of the second slave into the network would require the first slave necessarily to revert back to the default hopping sequence. Id. ¶ 10. But this would undermine the stated benefits of Gerten, which explicitly discloses: The above process can be applied to a Bluetooth example and includes identification of a Bluetooth device’s ability to support interference avoidance, the measurements of signal strength on all channels and identification of which channel should not be used without violating the FCC rules, a method of modifying the Bluetooth hop sequence so that it will avoid channels containing strong or fixed interferers while still supporting standard Bluetooth hopping with other non-enabled members of the piconet and a method of relating necessary interference avoidance information to the remote Bluetooth devices. Ex. 1003, col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 9 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,477,624 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,477,624

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.