• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00162 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14, 16–29, 33, and 35–38 were not held unpatentable because the strong evidence of industry praise and long-felt need, with other objective evidence, outweighed the obviousness showing.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For the purposes of this Decision, we determine that only the following claim terms need express interpretation. 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.”). 7 A.L. Boyer, Laser “cross-hair” sidelight, Med. Phys., 5:58-60 (1978) (Ex. 1108, “Boyer”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “dimensional information” appears facially to be co-extensive with any information relevant to three dimensions. We discern that “length, width, and depth” are just such information. We have considered Patent Owner’s above-cited portions of the ’502 Patent, but are unpersuaded that those portions narrow “three dimensional information” with sufficient “reasonable 8 In evaluating the assertions set forth in the Declaration of James Balter, Ph.D., in Support of Petitioner’s Reply (Ex. 1500), we considered Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on the Cross-Examination of Dr. James Balter (Paper 48) and Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination (Paper 56). 9 In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily agreed with Petitioner’s proposed construction of “three dimensional information.” Dec. 7–8. clarity, deliberateness, and precision” such that one of ordinary skill would have understood “three dimensional information” as co-extensive with Patent Owner’s proffered construction. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For example, column 2, lines 42–48 and 51–55 certainly disclose that “volume” is desirable, but does not provide any equivalence between “three dimensional information” and “volume.” Indeed, column 2, lines 54–55 disclose “provide information regarding the location of soft-tissue target volumes,” indicating that “information” is a subset of “volume.” In another example, column 3, lines 40–43, mentions “three-dimensional (3- D) images,” which we agree would appear to require “volumetric” data; however, the claim limitation at issue is the broader term “three dimensional information.” In a further example, column 9, line 62, through column 10, line 5, clearly refers to “volumetric data,” but does not indicate its relation to “three dimensional information.” In yet another example, column 16, lines 43–45 and 58–62, do not recite “three dimensional information,” instead disclosing “3-D structure” and “3-D nature” in relation generally to “volumetric data,” but, again, not in a manner sufficient to indicate a particular relationship. Finally, in regard to assertions set forth in the Declaration of Dr. Hashemi, we discern some merit in his assertion that when reading the claim limitation “three dimensional information” in conjunction with another claim limitation “cone-beam computed tomography,” “a CBCT image is a volumetric image that provides the location, shape, and spatial orientation of the target volume in all directions, not just its length, width, and depth.” Ex. 2080 ¶ 85. The claim limitation at issue, however, reads “an image of said object, wherein said image contains at least three dimensional information of said object based on one rotation of said x-ray source around said object” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the claim limitation does not preclude an image having more information than “information concerning three dimensions of an object (such as length, width, and depth),” such as “a volumetric image of an object generated by reconstructing 2-D projection images.” Under Patent Owner’s construction, however, the image would be required to have such information. We are unpersuaded that such information is required under a proper construction of “three dimensional information” for the reasons set forth supra. We construe “three dimensional information” as “information concerning three dimensions of an object (such as length, width, and depth).”” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “In the Institution Decision, we preliminary determined that “we are not persuaded that the term ‘computer’ fails to recite sufficiently definite structure. As a result, we decline to construe this limitation as a means-plusfunction limitation in accordance with § 112 ¶ 6.” Dec. 10. In its Response, Patent Owner agreed with the Board’s preliminary determination. PO Resp. 11. Petitioner did not address this construction in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply 1–4. After considering our preliminary determination anew, in light a complete trial record, we remain unpersuaded that the term “computer” fails to recite sufficiently definite structure. Accordingly, we decline to construe this limitation as a means-plus-function limitation in accordance with § 112 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Balter, Petitioner’s expert, proffers that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’502 patent, would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 13. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert, essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D, and that three years of experience is preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art based on Dr. Balter’s more complete explanation. We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would have in the 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.”). To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 6,842,502 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,842,502
• Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. William Beaumont HospitalNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 4, 2017 · IPR2016-00170 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 and 20–31 were not held unpatentable because the strong evidence of industry praise and long-felt need, with supporting evidence of commercial success and copying, outweighed the obviousness showing.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Balter, Petitioner’s expert, proffers that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, with respect to and at the time of the’765 Patent, would have the following qualifications: “a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications.” Ex. 1102 ¶ 13. Dr. Hashemi, Patent Owner’s expert, essentially agrees, with the only major differences to the above being that an M.S. is acceptable in lieu of a Ph.D., and that three years of experience is preferred. Ex. 2080 ¶ 17. Nominally, we accept Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art based on Dr. Balter more complete explanation. We note, however, that neither party has explained substantively any significance that the difference in the proffered levels of ordinary skill in the art would have in the 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.”). To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyNot shown unpatentable

    “In our Decision on Institution, we were not persuaded that the terms “computer” (claim 1), “controller” (claim 7), “structure” (claim 20), and “support table” (claim 26) fail to recite sufficiently definite structure, and, therefore, we declined to construe these terms as means-plus-function limitations in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Dec. 10‒12. Neither Patent Owner nor Petitioner provide any more argument or evidence to disturb our interpretation of these terms. See PO Resp. 12. Accordingly, we do not construe these terms as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC., 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The Board may not change a claim interpretation from the institution decision where neither party anticipated that “already-interpreted terms were actually moving targets.”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “We begin first with the claim language, and note that “three- dimensional information” appears facially to be co-extensive with any information relevant to three-dimensions. We discern that “length, width, 6 In evaluating the assertions set forth in the Declaration of James Balter Ph.D. in Support of Petitioner’ Reply (Ex. 1500), we considered Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on the Cross-Examination of Dr. James Balter (Paper 48) and Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination (Paper 56). 7 In the Decision on Institution, we preliminarily agreed with Petitioner’s proposed construction of “three-dimensional information.” Dec. 9–10. and depth” are just such information. We have considered Patent Owner’s above-cited portions of the ’765 patent, but are unpersuaded that those portions narrow “three-dimensional information” with sufficient “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” such that one of ordinary skill would have understood “three-dimensional information” as co-extensive with Patent Owner’s proffered construction. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For example, column 2, lines 44‒56 certainly disclose that “volume” is desirable, but does not provide any equivalence between “threedimensional information” and “volume.” Indeed, column 2, lines 55–56 disclose “provide information regarding the location of soft-tissue target volumes,” indicating that “information” is a subset of “volume.” In another example, column 3, lines 41–56, mentions “three-dimensional (3-D) images,” which we agree would appear to require “volumetric data;” however, the claim limitation at issue is the broader term “three-dimensional information.” In a further example, column 9, line 54‒64, clearly refers to “volumetric data,” but does not indicate its relation to “three-dimensional information.” In yet another example, column 16, lines 23–25 and 38–42, do not recite “three-dimensional information,” instead disclosing “3-D structure” and “3-D nature” in relation generally to “volumetric data,” but, again, not in a manner sufficient to indicate a particular relationship. Finally, in regards to assertions set forth in the Declaration of Dr. Hashemi, we discern some merit in his assertion that when reading the claim limitation “three-dimensional information” in conjunction with another claim limitation “cone-beam computed tomography,” “a CBCT image is a volumetric image that provides the location, shape, and spatial orientation of the target volume in all directions, not just its length, width, and depth.” Ex. 2080 ¶ 85. Furthermore, the claim limitation does not preclude an image having more information than “three-dimensional information concerning said object” (such as length, width, and depth), “based on a plurality of two-dimensional projection images.” Under Patent Owner’s construction, however, the image would be required to have such information. We are unpersuaded that such information is required under a proper construction of “three-dimensional information” for the reasons set forth supra. We construe “three-dimensional information” as “information” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are unpersuaded for several reasons. Primarily, we are unpersuaded because a fundamental assumption made by Patent Owner is that the patient must remain unrestrained. Patent Owner makes this assumption based on the assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” PO Resp. 33. We have reviewed Patent Owner’s supporting evidence, and are unpersuaded that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s assertion that “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.” For example, Patent Owner cites to certain paragraphs of Dr. Hashemi’s Declaration, which in turn cite to certain portions of Depp. Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 117, 133, 136 (citing Ex. 1104, 11:66–12:23, Fig. 9). We have reviewed those portions of Depp, and find that while they do disclose that target location and treatment periods are on the order of seconds, they do not mention anything about “the primary goal of the Adler/Depp systems is to permit a patient to be relatively unrestrained during the radiotherapy procedure.”11 Accordingly, absent such an evidentiary foundation, we do not find credible Dr. Hashemi’s assertions concerning this matter. Even without explicit analysis by Patent Owner, we logically understand the connection between longer image acquisition and processing times, and the higher likelihood of interim patient movement. Absent the aforementioned “primary goal,” however, we are unclear as to why the converse of that goal would not be correct, i.e., that one of ordinary skill would have resolved the timing consideration by restraining the patient. Indeed, in opposition, Petitioner asserts, and we agree, that “POSA would understand that in the majority of radiotherapy treatment settings, patients are in fact restrained to some degree.” Pet. Reply 7‒8 (citing Ex. 1500 ¶¶ 33–35; Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 54–55; Ex. 1502, 142:23–143:19). In particular, we are persuaded by the consistency of Dr. Balter’s and Dr. Hashemi’s testimony that molds were used in 2000 to minimize unwanted patient motion during treatment. Ex. 1500 ¶ 35; Ex. 2080 ¶ 55.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,471,765 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,471,765
• DISH Network L.L.C. v. TQ Beta, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 30, 2017 · IPR2015-01791 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board entered adverse judgment against claims 11, 14, and 15; petitioner did not show claim 13 unpatentable under any of the three instituted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “The Board’s rules permit a party to “request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R § 42.73(b). The Board construes a party’s “[a]bandonment of the contest,” as a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R § 42.73(b)(3). Accordingly, we construe Patent Owner’s lack of response to Petitioner’s various challenges to claims 11, 14, and 15, Patent Owner’s offer to cancel claims 11, 14, and 15, and Patent Owner’s admission that it was “not contesting those claims,” to be an “abandonment of the contest,” and a request for adverse judgment. See PO Resp. 2 n.2; see also Tr. 24:12–18. The request for entry of adverse judgment on claims 11, 14, and 15 is granted, concurrently with entry of adverse judgment on these same claims in DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. TQ Beta, LLC, Case IPR2015-01756 (PTAB) (Paper 31).” slip op. at 6

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

    “B. Claim Construction The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016). Consistent with the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner asks us to construe the terms “delay between first time frame and second time frame,” “first geographic location,” and “second geographic location.” Pet. 12–14. Petitioner does not propose any constructions for these terms, but asks they be construed in the manner implied by Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the District Court litigation. Id. In our Decision to Institute, we declined to expressly construe these claim terms, finding their meaning was readily understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. Inst. 6. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contests that decision. See PO Resp. 12–13; Pet. Reply passim. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we find no need to expressly construe these claim terms.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Although we agree with Petitioner that the ’456 patent discloses “encoding the received signal” using a lossy encoding algorithm, using a lossy encoding algorithm to encode a signal does not identify the signal to which the encoding algorithm is applied. Claim 13 requires encoding the received television signal—using a lossy or lossless encoding algorithm— and Patent Owner persuasively argues that Monteiro’s Primary Servers 20, by compressing an extracted audio stream only, are not encoding the received television signal, which has both audio and video components. See PO. Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2003, 2180 (defining a “television signal” as “the visual and aural signals that are broadcast together in order to produce the picture and sound components of a television program.”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 11

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

    “In an inter partes review, Petitioner bears the burden of proof. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Thus, Petitioner must “demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Intelligent Bio–Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted). Petitioner argues one reason to combine Monteiro and Compton is because both references are directed “to giving a user greater control of the time and place for reproduction of audio or visual information as desired by a user.” Pet. 55 (emphasis added). The fact that two references are directed to solving the same problem is an indication that the references are analogous art that can be combined. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is not, however, a reason, in itself, explaining why a person skilled in the art would have combined certain specific teachings of the references in a certain way. Even if it might have been obvious, given Monteiro’s teaching to provide audio and/or video communication services, to modify Monteiro’s processing of received television signals to encode and transmit the received signal’s audio and video components as taught by Compton, Petitioner did not make that argument and did not present the evidence in a manner supporting that theory. The Board does not “raise, address, and decide unpatentability theories never presented by the petitioner.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, the Board’s decision is based “on arguments that were advanced by a party, and to which the opposing party was given a chance to respond.” Id. Moreover, Petitioner’s assertion that Monteiro is directed to giving users greater control of the time and place for reproduction of audio/video information is not supported by the evidence. In Monteiro, it is the distributor of audio/video information that chooses the distribution time, not Monteiro’s user. For example, Monteiro discloses real-time information can be delivered to any number of users because “the same information is being sent at approximately the same time to everyone who is enabled to receive the information.” Ex. 1016, 2:11–16 (emphasis added). Monteiro further discloses that users can “choose[] to tune in or tune out a particular [distribution] channel, but do[] not choose the time at which the channel distributes its information.” Id. at 2:20–22 (emphasis added). Thus, Monteiro does not allow the user to choose the time for video reproduction, and Petitioner fails to articulate a reason why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Monteiro to include the elements of Compton that would have allowed the user to choose the time for video reproduction.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,203,456 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,203,456
• DISH Network L.L.C. v. TQ Beta, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 30, 2017 · IPR2015-01756 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board entered adverse judgment against claims 11, 14, and 15, and held claims 13 and 16 unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Compton; claim 13 was also obvious over Compton and Shteyn.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “The Board’s rules permit a party to “request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R § 42.73(b). The Board construes a party’s “[a]bandonment of the contest,” as a request for adverse judgment. 37 C.F.R § 42.73(b)(4). Accordingly, we construe Patent Owner’s lack of response to Petitioner’s various challenges to claims 11, 14, and 15, Patent Owner’s offer to cancel claims 11, 14, and 15, and Patent Owner’s admission that it was “not contesting those claims,” to be an “abandonment of the contest” and a request for adverse judgment as to those claims. See PO Resp. 2 n.2; see also Tr. 24:12–18. The request for entry of adverse judgment on claims 11, 14, and 15 is granted, concurrently with entry of adverse judgment on these same claims in DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. TQ Beta, LLC, Case IPR2015-01791 (PTAB) (Paper 30).” slip op. at 8

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

    “B. Claim Construction The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016). Consistent with the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner asks us to construe the terms “delay between first time frame and second time frame,” “first geographic location,” and “second geographic location.” Pet. 11–13. Petitioner does not propose any constructions for these terms, but requests they be construed in the manner implied by Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the District Court litigation. Id. In our Decision to Institute, we declined to expressly construe these claim terms, finding their meaning was readily understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art. Dec. Inst. 6. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contests that decision. See PO Resp. 13–14; Pet. Reply passim. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we find no need to expressly construe these claim terms.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner further asks us to construe the terms “means for receiving a second broadcast via a world wide network,” “means for decoding the encoded signal,” “means . . . for storing the decoded signal,” and “means for reproducing the information.” Pet. 14–15. Petitioner argues these terms should be construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and identifies the following as structures corresponding to the recited functions: (a) a network coupling system or adapter for the “means for receiving a second broadcast via a world wide network,” (b) a media player that includes an MPEG-compatible decoder for the “means for decoding the encoded signal,” (c) a semiconductor or magnetic based memory for the “means . . . for storing the decoded signal,” and (d) a display system, display, or speakers for the “means for reproducing the information.” Id. In our Decision to Institute, upon reviewing the Specification of the ’456 patent, we agreed with Petitioner’s proposed constructions for these terms, and adopted them as our own. Dec. Inst. 7. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contests our constructions of these terms. See PO Resp. 14; Pet. Reply passim. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we continue to apply these constructions.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Compton fails to disclose encoding the same signal that was originally broadcast and received in a first location. . . . Instead, Compton discloses that what is encoded (specific clips out of an entire newscast) is very different from what was originally broadcast.” PO Resp. 21–22. According to Patent Owner, “there is no express disclosure in Compton of encoding the same signal that was received and then transmitting an encoded version of the received signal.” Id. at 24. Patent Owner further argues that Compton requires using edit decision lists to edit and segment the received signal, and therefore specifically teaches “to not encode and transmit the same signal that was received.” Id. at 23–24. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. frame, transmitting the signal to the second location, and receiving and decoding the signal at the second location in the second time frame. Although Compton’s system is capable of receiving multi-segmented CNN NEWSROOM broadcasts and encoding only segments of those broadcasts, Compton’s system is not so limited. See Pet. Reply 7–8. Significantly, Compton’s system specifies neither the content nor the segmentation of received CNN NEWSROOM broadcasts. For example, Compton discloses the CNN NEWSROOM broadcast is a daily 15 minute broadcast of arbitrary composition that “generally consists of 3–5 segments of 2–5 minutes each.” Ex. 1004, 11 (emphasis added). Consequently, Compton’s system does not depend on receiving CNN NEWSROOM broadcasts having any particular or well-defined segmentation. Instead, the system is configurable to receive and encode CNN NEWSROOM broadcasts of arbitrary segmentation, including broadcasts containing a single 15 minute segment. This flexibility is provided by the edit decision list, which can contain an arbitrary number of start and stop time codes to segment and encode whatever arbitrary number of CNN NEWSROOM program segments are received in a given day’s broadcast. Pet. Reply 8–9; Ex. 1004, 20–21. These start and stop time codes are received from CNN prior to the broadcast, and entered into the edit decision list. Ex. 1004, 20–21. slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 7,203,456 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,203,456
• Kamstrup A/S v. Apator Miitors ApsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2016 · IPR2015-01403 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are anticipated by Nielsen; the remaining claims are unpatentable on the listed obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016). Consistent with the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The only term Petitioner asks us to construe is the term “seal” recited in claim 8. Pet. 21. Petitioner argues the term means a “legal” or “tamper-evident” seal. Id. Patent Owner does not dispute this interpretation, and does not ask us to construe any claim terms. We decline to construe the term “seal” because it is not necessary to resolve any controversy. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. We need not expressly construe any other term, as the terms are deemed to have their plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “In his Declaration, Mr. Skallebæk indicated his position as Senior Vice President for Petitioner. Ex. 1018 ¶ 1. He further declared that he had read the Petition and the Exhibits thereto, and swore that all statements in the Declaration were true and correct, and signed the Declaration. Id. ¶ 2. In his deposition, Mr. Skallebæk testified that although he receives an annual salary from Petitioner, his compensation is independent of the outcome of this proceeding. Ex. 2007, 16:10–17:20. The evidence does not show that Mr. Skallebæk has any other financial interest in the outcome of the case. We duly note the interest of Mr. Skallebæk as an Officer of Petitioner in our consideration and weighing of his testimony. See Ethicon Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We do not consider the fact that someone else first drafted Mr. Skallebæk’s Declaration, which he reviewed and signed, to diminish the credibility of his testimony in any way.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “In his Declaration, Mr. Drachmann declares a “mechanics6” file was attached to the first Tunheim email and a “UFM++venture” file was attached to both the Bjerngaard and second Tunheim emails. Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 5–10. Although the body of the first Tunheim email refers to a mechanical meter assembly and indicates a sample is attached, there are no indicia in either the body or header of the email indicating a file is attached, let alone a file entitled “mechanics6.” See Ex. 2009, 1, 3. Thus, the only evidence that the “mechanics6” file was attached to the first Tunheim email is the Drachmann Declaration. See Ex. 2008 ¶ 5. Moreover, the only evidence that the first Tunheim email was actually sent to Mr. Tunheim is the Drachmann Declaration. Id. ¶ 5. A similar analysis of the Bjerngaard and second Tunheim emails leads to a similar conclusion, i.e., that the only evidence that a “UFM++venture” file was attached to these emails, or that these emails were sent to their intended recipients is the Drachmann Declaration. Id. ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 2010 1, 3; Ex. 2011 1, 3. Patent Owner has provided no evidence corroborating Mr. Drachmann’s testimony on these points, such as a reply email from Mr. Tunheim or Mr. Bjerngaard, or a declaration from Mr. Tunheim or Mr. Bjerngaard stating he had received the emails on the dates indicated. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 5–7. Moreover, even assuming the first and second Tunheim emails and the Bjerngaard email were sent on the dates indicated and included the “mechanics6” and “UFM++venture” files as attachments, this evidence by itself is insufficient to prove conception of the invention prior to March 22, 2010, because it does not show that the inventors were in possession of every element of the claims. For example, each of independent claims 1, 12, and 13 requires “a housing for the transducers and electronic circuit,” and neither the “mechanics6” file nor the “UFM++venture” file shows transducers located within a housing as required by the claims. See Ex. 2009, 4; Ex. 2010, 4–24; Ex. 2011, 54–74. As Petitioner correctly notes, although the devices are referred to as ultrasonic flowmeters in Exhibits 2010 and 2011, “the presence of ‘at least one ultrasonic transducer’ actually inside the device is not apparent in any of the Exhibits themselves, and could be located elsewhere in the fluid flow and still be fully consistent with the content of the Exhibits.” Pet. Reply 2–3. Patent Owner also relies on the “mechanics7” drawings to prove prior conception of independent claims 1, 12, and 13. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 14, 21, 22. Although these drawings show the transducers within the housing, Patent Owner presents no evidence indicating these drawings were shown to another person. See Coleman, 754 F.2d at 359 (“Conception must be proved by corroborating evidence which shows that the inventor disclosed to others his completed thought expressed in such clear terms as to enable those skilled in the art to make the invention”) (emphasis added) (internal quotations and citation omitted).” slip op. at 13

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

    “D. Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 over Nielsen Petitioner argues Nielsen teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 2, 6, and 7, and therefore, anticipates these claims. Pet. 49–53. Nielsen discloses an ultrasonic flow meter that can be used as either a water or gas meter. Ex. 1016 ¶ 28. The flow meter includes flow meter housing 120 with measuring tube 114, and an attached water tight casing that encloses printed circuit board 202 and transducers 206.5 Id. ¶ 35. Nielsen’s casing consists of top part 134 hermetically sealed to bottom membrane 132 via soldering, laser welding, or glue. Id. ¶¶ 35, 44. The bottom membrane 132 includes first and second recesses 236 for seating transducers 206, and flow meter housing 120 includes first and second holes for receiving the first and second recesses. Id. ¶ 38. Bracing 116 is provided to lock the casing to housing 120 via one or more screws. Id. ¶ 40. 5 Petitioner maps Nielsen’s flow meter housing 120 (which includes measuring tube 114) to the claimed “flow channel,” and Nielsen’s water-tight casing (which contains a circuit board and transducers) to the claimed “housing.” See Pet. 50; Ex. 1016 ¶ 35. Figure 2 of Nielsen is reproduced below. Figure 2 is an exploded view of an ultrasonic flow meter as taught by Nielsen. Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of evidence, that Nielsen discloses each of the limitations required by claims 1, 2, 6, and 7. See Pet. 49–53. Based on Nielsen’s disclosure, discussed supra, we find Petitioner’s analysis persuasive and adopt it as our own. Patent Owner does not contest” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,893,559 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,893,559
• Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2015-01331 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 are unpatentable: Heron anticipates claims 1–4, and Heron combined with Monsorno ’926 renders claims 5–6 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2146 (2016). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Petitioner submits that each term of the challenged claims should be given its ordinary meaning.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner agreed in its Preliminary Response that claim terms should be given their ordinary meaning, and did not propose that any terms be construed separately in its Patent Owner Response. Prelim. Resp. 8. For the purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine that none of the claim terms in the ’879 patent require express construction.” slip op. at 6

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Specifically, Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibits 1004, 1006, 1008, 1009, 1010, and 1011, portions of Dr. Randall’s Declaration concerning those exhibits (paragraphs 65–75, 87–94, and 124–151 of Ex. 1012), as well as Appendices E, G, J, L, M, N, O and P of Dr. Randall’s Declaration on the grounds that they relate to patentability challenges that did not form the basis of our Institution Decision in this proceeding. Id. at 2–4, 6, 7. Patent Owner additionally seeks to exclude paragraphs 22 and 25 of Dr. Randall’s Declaration under Fed. R. Evid. 702 for failing to be based on sufficient facts or data. Id. at 4–5. Furthermore, Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibit 1015, Dr. Shanfield’s deposition transcript, on the grounds that the testimony cited to at 8:21–9:2 in Exhibit 1015 was objected to for lack of relevance. Id. at 7. Because we did not rely upon any of the exhibits, portions of Dr. Randall’s Declaration, or the cited testimony from Dr. Shanfield’s deposition transcript that are sought to be excluded in this Final Written Decision, we dismiss Patent Owner’s motion to exclude as moot. V.” slip op. at 22

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Although a Reply may properly respond to arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Response (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)), it is not an opportunity for Petitioner to identify, for the first time, new and different prior art elements that are alleged to satisfy the claim requirements. Here, Petitioner’s reliance on trimming plate 15 is materially different from its prior reliance on capacitor plates 2a, 4a, 2c, 4b, etc., especially with respect to the requirement of “one of said contacts members connecting to an end surface of said electrode layer.” Whereas the Petition pointed to, and our Institution Decision relied upon, Bonini’s teaching that the capacitor plates extend to the left or right side portions of capacitor body 3 in order to contact terminal-forming coating 13 or 14 (see Pet. 17; Inst. Dec. 10; Ex. 1002, 3:5– 21, Fig. 2), Petitioner’s new argument relies upon Bonini’s teaching that trimming plate 15 has a narrow tab 15" having an edge 15' that extends to a difference surface (lateral side margin) of ceramic body 3. See Reply 8; Ex. 1002, 2:69–3:1. Because Patent Owner was not given a fair opportunity in this proceeding to respond to this argument, we consider Petitioner’s argument to be improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) as not responding to arguments raised in the Patent Owner Response and, therefore, decline to consider it. See In re Nuvasive, Inc., 2016 WL 6608999, Nos. 2015-01672, 2015-1673, slip op. at 11–13 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2016).” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “dielectrics having “coextensive” length and width dimensions. PO Resp. 30–33. We disagree, as we find that requirement satisfied by the capacitor shown in Heron’s figures. Specifically, “FIG. 1 shows in side section view of a capacitor,” “FIG. 2 shows in exploded view four green ceramic layers that are stacked, sintered and terminated to make the capacitor of FIG. 1,” and “FIG. 3 shows in perspective view the capacitor of FIG. 1.” Ex. 1003, 2:25–31, Figs. 1–3. Figures 4, 7, and 8 show side sectional views, while figures 5 and 6 show top views of capacitors with alternate electrode geometries. Ex. 1003, 2:32–36; Figs. 5–8. Taken as a whole, these figures indicate plainly that the lengths and widths of dielectric layers 10 and 11 terminate at the same location, thereby satisfying the “coextensive” requirement. Patent Owner contends that reliance on Heron’s figures is improper under the Federal Circuit’s decision in Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000). PO Resp. 31–33. We do not find Hockerson’s holding to be applicable here. Unlike with the claim at issue in Hockerson, which was construed to require that the “central longitudinal groove” has a width that must be less than the combined width of the two peripheral fins, the challenged claims do not require any particular size or proportion. The requirement that the dielectric layers have coextensive length and width dimensions can be assessed by simply viewing the figures of Heron, and no additional measurements are necessary to make that determination. It is well established “that a claimed invention may be anticipated or rendered obvious by a drawing in a reference, whether the drawing disclosure be accidental or intentional.” In re Meng, 492 F.2d 843, 847 (CCPA 1974). Patent Owner also contends that the Petition fails to identify what specific elements in Heron correspond to numerous claim elements. PO Resp. 34–37. We disagree. As noted above, the Petition identifies specific teachings of Heron, and includes a claim chart mapping Heron’s teachings to the claim elements. Pet. 18–24. In particular, Patent Owner argues that the Petition does not specify where the claimed “electrode layer” is found in Heron. PO Resp. 34–35. As Patent Owner recognizes, however, the Petition identified overlapping buried electrodes 15 and 16 for this claim element. See Pet. 19–20. We find this to be sufficient as both layers 15 and 16 satisfy the claim requirements of having dimensions smaller than the dielectric layer, being mounted on the first surface of a dielectric layer, and extending to a side face of the capacitor body so as to contact the end terminations. Patent Owner also argues that the Petition fails to specify where in Heron “opposite polarity” is taught. PO Resp. 35–36. We find that the Petition’s identification of end terminations 22 and 24 is sufficient. See Pet. 23–24. As explained by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Randall, in order to store charge, a voltage must be imposed across the terminals of Heron’s capacitor, “and the resulting voltage difference across the two contact members 22 and 24 establishes the opposite polarities of the capacitor.” Ex. 1014 ¶ 38. Finally, Patent Owner argues that the Petition fails to specify where “said second surface of said first dielectric layer” is found in Heron. PO Resp. 36–37. The Petition, however, noted that “[a]s seen in Fig. 2, each dielectric layer has a length and width, as well as a first and second surface.” Pet. 19. The Petition further notes that “Heron discloses that green ceramic (dielectric) layer 10 would be first formed and screen printing the electrode pattern 15 thereon.” Id. at 18. Because the Petition identifies electrode layer 15 as being on the “first surface” of the first dielectric layer 10, we find that the Petition also sufficiently identified the opposite surface of dielectric layer 10 as satisfying the requirements of the “second surface.” Figure 1 of Heron shows terminations 22 and 24 provided on the bottom, i.e., “second surface,” of the dielectric layer and extending to the edges of the capacitor body. The Petition, therefore, identified sufficiently the specific features of Heron’s capacitor that correspond to the claim elements. Based on those identified features, and the record developed during this proceeding, we find that Heron anticipates claims 1–4.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 6,992,879 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,992,879
• Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 10, 2016 · CBM2015-00132 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exception

    “We are persuaded that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are drawn to the abstract idea of conditioning and controlling access to content based on, for example, payment. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites “code to receive payment validation data . . . for said at least one selected item of multimedia content.” Independent claim 8 recites “code to control access to said selected content data item responsive to the payment validation data.” Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “code to retrieve supplementary data via said wireless interface and output said supplementary data to said user using said display.” Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and recites “said data access terminal is integrated with a mobile communications device and audio/video player.” Furthermore, as discussed above, the ’772 patent discusses addressing recording industry concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to widely available compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1201, 1:23–57. The patent specification explains that these pirates obtain data either by unauthorized or legitimate means and then make the data available over the Internet without authorization. Id. The specification further explains that once data has been published on the Internet, it is difficult to police access to and use of it by Internet users who may not even realize that it is pirated. Id. The ’772 patent proposes to solve this problem by restricting access to data on a portable data carrier based upon payment validation. Id. at 1:61–2:3. The ’772 patent makes clear that the crux of the claimed subject matter is restricting access to stored content based on validation of payment. Id.” slip op. at 11

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive concept

    “2. Inventive Concept “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297). “This requires more than simply stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’ or ‘apply it with a computer.’ Similarly, the prohibition on patenting an ineligible concept cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of an ineligible concept to a particular technological environment.” Versata, 793 F.3d at 1332 (citations omitted). Moreover, the mere recitation of generic computer components performing conventional functions is not enough. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”).” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “Smartflash has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Mr. Wechselberger’s Declaration. Smartflash has not cited any authority requiring an expert to recite or apply the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in order for the expert opinion to be accorded weight. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d), we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether Petitioner has established unpatentability. In doing so, it is within our discretion to determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including the weight accorded to expert opinion, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. Our discretion includes determining whether the expert testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and whether the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See FRE 702.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,336,772 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772
• Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 10, 2016 · CBM2015-00132 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 14, 19, and 22 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of conditioning and controlling access to content without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “We are persuaded that claims 14, 19, and 22 are drawn to the abstract idea of conditioning and controlling access to content based on, for example, payment. Specifically, independent claim 14 recites “code responsive to said user selection of said selected at least one item of multimedia content to transmit payment data relating to payment for said selected at least one item of multimedia content.” Independent claim 19 is similar and recites “code responsive to said user selection of said selected at least one content data item to transmit payment data relating to payment for said selected at least one content item.” Claim 22 depends from claim 19 and recites “wherein said data access terminal is integrated with a mobile communications device and audio/video player.”” slip op. at 11

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “claims are either field of use limitations—limiting the ideas of payment and controlling access to content to payment for retrieving “data” and controlling access to content based on “payment data” and “payment validation data”— or generic computer implementations, which Petitioner argues is insufficient to bring the claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 25–31. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the challenged claims “recite no more than generic computer elements and functions that were well-known, routine, and conventional to a POSITA at the time of filing.” Reply 6 (citations omitted); see id. at 10–12. Petitioner persuades us that claims 14, 19, and 22 of the ’772 patent do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to significantly more than claims on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s rationale that the additional elements of claims 14, 19, and 22 are field of use limitations and/or are generic features of a computer that do not bring these claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 25–31; Reply 4–6.” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “We agree with Petitioner. As noted above, Smartflash, as movant, has the burden to show that these exhibits are inadmissible. Smartflash’s reference to FRE 703 in unavailing because while this rule does not establish the admissibility of the exhibits, it also does not speak to whether these exhibits are inadmissible. Because Mr. Wechselberger attests that he reviewed these exhibits in reaching the opinions he expressed in this case, Smartflash has not shown that they are irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402. Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibits 1324, 1329, 1330, 1333, and 1335. We grant the motion as to Exhibit 1305.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,336,772 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772
• Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 26, 2016 · CBM2015-00033 · APJ Matthew R Clements · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 25, 26, 30, and 32 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “We are persuaded that claims 25, 26, 30, and 32 are drawn to the abstract idea of conditioning and controlling access to content based on, for example, payment. Specifically, independent claim 25 recites “code to receive payment validation data . . . for said selected at least one item of multimedia content.” Independent claim 30 recites “code to receive payment validation data . . . for said selected at least one content data item.” Claim 26 depends from claim 25 and recites “code to present said second selected one or more items of retrieved multimedia content to a user via said display if access is permitted.” Claim 32 depends from claim 30 and recites “said data access terminal is integrated with a mobile communications device and audio/video player.” Furthermore, as discussed above, the ’772 patent discusses addressing recording industry concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to widely available compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1401, 1:23–57. The specification explains that these pirates obtain data either by unauthorized or legitimate means and then make the data available over the Internet without authorization. Id. The specification further explains that once data has been published on the Internet, it is difficult to police access to and use of it by Internet users who may not even realize that it is pirated. Id. The ’772 patent proposes to solve this problem by restricting access to data on a portable data carrier based upon payment validation. Id. at 1:61–2:3. The ’772 patent makes clear that the crux of the claimed subject matter is restricting access to stored data based on validation of payment. Id.” slip op. at 11

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “computer elements and functions that were well-known, routine, and conventional to a POSITA at the time of filing.” Reply 6 (citations omitted); see id. at 13–14. Apple persuades us that claims 25, 26, 30, and 32 of the ’772 patent do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to significantly more than claims on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt Apple’s rationale that the additional elements of claims 25, 26, 30, and 32 are field of use limitations and/or generic features of a computer that do not bring these claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 24–29; Reply 4–6.” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “We are persuaded by Apple that Exhibit 1402 is offered not for the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., the content of the ’772 patent), but as evidence of how Smartflash has characterized the ’772 patent. Thus, Smartflash has not persuaded us that Exhibit 1402 is evidence of the content of a writing or that it is cumulative to the ’772 patent. Furthermore, Smartflash has not persuaded us that Exhibit 1402 is irrelevant, at least because its characterization of the ’772 patent in prior proceedings is relevant to the credibility of its characterization of the ’772 patent in this proceeding. Smartflash contends that Exhibit 1402 does not contradict its characterization of the ’772 patent in this proceeding such that the credibility of Smartflash’s characterization is an issue. Paper 32, 3. Smartflash’s argument misses the point because the credibility of Smartflash’s characterization is for us to decide, and we have to consider the document at issue in making that determination. Further, as Apple notes (Paper 31, 2), Smartflash’s characterization of the ’772 patent in prior proceedings is relevant to Smartflash’s contention in this proceeding that the ’772 patent does not satisfy the “financial in nature” requirement for a covered business method patent review (Prelim. Resp. 5–11). Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibit 1402.” slip op. at 28

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Smartflash has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Mr. Wechselberger’s Declaration. Smartflash has not cited any authority requiring an expert to recite or apply the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in order for the expert opinion to be accorded weight. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d), we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether Apple has established unpatentability. In doing so, it is within our discretion to determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including the weight accorded to expert opinion, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. Our discretion includes determining whether the expert testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and whether the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See FRE 702.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,336,772 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772
• Apple Inc. / ZTE Corporation And ZTE (USA) Inc. v. E-Watch, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01366 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12–14 are unpatentable as obvious over McNelley and Umezawa; claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable because the claimed user interface was not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “3. Claims 1, 6, and 12 With respect to claims 1 and 6, as explained below, Petitioner has not established the unpatentability of either claim by a preponderance of the evidence. With respect to claim 12, notwithstanding the arguments and evidence presented by Patent Owner, which are discussed below, we are persuaded by the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioners. Claim 12 has been shown as unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Id. at 8–10. Despite the representations made by Patent Owner regarding the exchanges between the Applicant and the Examiner during prosecution, we agree with Petitioners that Patent Owner’s proposed constructions for these terms are excessively narrow under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation. The prosecution history recounted by Patent Owner above indicates that the articulated distinction from the Ida reference centers on Ida’s failure to describe displaying an image selected from within the memory. Whether Ida’s memory stores one image or a plurality of images was not of significance. Under this circumstance, it is not justifiable, under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, to require a selection from among a plurality of images stored in memory. The claims are broad enough to encompass storing just one image in memory and having that image selected for displaying and for transmission. The fact that the Specification of the ’871 patent discloses embodiments in which more than one images is stored in memory does not justify importing limitations from the Specification into the claims. See SuperGuide Corp., 358 F.3d at 875. We find no express definition in the Specification of the ’871 patent or in any of the prosecution history identified by Patent Owner, for the terms at issue here, much less one set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. If a patentee desires to be his or her own lexicographer, the purported definition must be set forth in the specification or prosecution history. CCS Fitness, Inc., 288 F.3d at 1366. Such a definition must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC, 158 F.3d at 1249; Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Patent Owner also identifies nothing in the Specification or prosecution history of the ’871 patent that constitutes a disclaimer or disavowal with regard to these terms that is sufficiently specific so as to require the storage of more than one image in the memory.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Patent Owner argues that “alphanumeric” means “consisting of both letters and numbers and often other symbols,” citing a dictionary definition (Ex. 2009). Id. at 26. The Specification of the ’871 patent does not contain any definition for the term “alphanumeric.” Dictionaries are a relevant source of information, but they are not controlling. We also are cognizant that there are numerous dictionaries and their entries for the same term are not necessarily the same. For example, in this instance, Petitioner has submitted two dictionary definitions for “alphanumeric” that are broader than that offered by Patent Owner: (1) “Consisting of letters or digits, or both, and sometimes including control characters, space characters, and other special characters” (Ex. 1015, 3); and (2) “[a]ny letter of the English alphabet, upper or lower case, or any of the decimal digits, 0 to 9” (Ex. 1016, 3). Reply 5. As discussed above, in this proceeding, we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation, to construe the meaning of claim terms. We note further that, as pointed out by Petitioner (Reply 5), even the definition offered by Patent Owner indicates that an alphanumeric character is a character in an alphanumeric system. Ex. 2009. That would mean although a character cannot be both a letter and a numeral, it still can be an alphanumeric character. Applying the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, we agree with Petitioner that “alphanumeric” is sufficiently broad to encompass each of these three cases: all numerals, all letters, or a combination of numerals and letters. Patent Owner’s argument to the contrary is unpersuasive, and rejected.” slip op. at 33

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “does not expressly set forth a definition. Patent Owner asserts: The technical art associated with the ’871 Patent relates to the field of integrating a camera together with a mobile phone to create a device capable of both audio and image communications on cellular networks. A person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSITA”) of the ’871 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree and/or relevant professional experience in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience related to the design of both cellular communications devices and digital imaging products. PO Resp. 3–4. We are not persuaded that one with ordinary skill in the art necessarily would have had experience in designing cellular communications devices. Based on the Specification of the ’871 patent, we determine that the invention is not about achieving improvements in cellular communication technology. Rather, it is necessary for one with ordinary skill in the art only to be familiar with what a cellular communication network required as an input source and what the expected format and/or protocol would be for sending and receiving information to and from the cellular network. It is noted that even Patent Owner’s stated definition does not require any actual experience in designing cellular communication devices, but just experience “related to” the design of cellular communication devices. Other than the foregoing, we determine that no express finding is necessary, on this record, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,365,871 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,365,871

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.