• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 26, 2020 · IPR2018-01661 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 15, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to establish the claimed power gain and power loss relationship used to determine whether to power down.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Raghunathan, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’014 patent “would have had at least an M.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience), and would have three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 57–58). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal with a modification to the level of education based on Patent Owner’s proposal in its Preliminary Response. Inst. Dec. 7 (citing Prelim. Resp. 5). Specifically, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” Id. Neither party argues during trial that our definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. See PO Resp. 2–3. See generally Pet. Reply. Because our preliminary determination is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We need only construe claim terms that are in controversy, and 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) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In this proceeding, neither party proposes a formal construction for any term. See Pet. 23; PO Resp. 3. We find it unnecessary to construe expressly any claim terms to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence on the complete record now before us, we find Petitioner has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Takahashi’s “predetermined value” to be an estimated power gain. Patent Owner, with the support of Dr. Wolfe’s credible testimony, persuasively argues that Takahashi’s “predetermined value” is a previous value of the cache-miss rate. Petitioner, on the other hand, does not point to anything in Takahashi that describes the “predetermined value” as an estimated power gain, nor does Petitioner cite any testimony from Dr. Raghunathan in support of its position other than a portion of his declaration that is substantially the same as the discussion in the Petition. See Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 80); see also Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 72– 80 (testimony substantially the same as pages 29–34 of the Petition). Without any suggestion in Takahashi that the “predetermined value” relates to an estimated power gain, Takahashi’s stated goal of reducing power consumption is not sufficient to show that Takahashi’s “predetermined value” is representative of an estimated power gain. For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has not established that Takahashi teaches or suggests an estimated power gain or determining whether to power down a portion of a device component in response to a relationship between an estimated power gain and an estimated power loss, as recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over the teachings of Takahashi.” slip op. at 19

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

    “We focus on one argument we find particularly persuasive—that Hu does not teach using the L2Access:leak ratio to “determin[e] whether to power down” a cache or a portion of a cache, as required by claim 1, even if the L2Access:leak ratio can be considered a relationship between an estimated power gain and an estimated power loss. See PO Resp. 24; PO Sur-reply 16–18. In its Reply, Petitioner alleges that “Hu explicitly discloses using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine when to power down the L1 cache.” Pet. Reply 16 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97–98). Petitioner, however, does not support this proposition by quoting or citing specific language in Hu, relying only on Dr. Raghunathan’s declaration, which provides substantially the same discussion as the Petition. Compare Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97–98, with Pet. 39–40. We agree with Patent Owner that the portion of Hu cited in the Petition and Dr. Raghunathan’s declaration does not teach using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine whether to power down the L1 cache, as Petitioner contends. See PO Sur-reply 16–18; Pet. 39–41; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97– 99. Rather, Hu discloses determining values of the normalized cache leakage energy for different decay intervals at four values of the L2Access:leak ratio—5, 10, 20, and 100. Ex. 1104, 175–76; see PO Sur-reply 17. Hu uses these assumed values of the L2Access:leak ratio as inputs to generate simulation data, not to determine whether to power down a cache or portion of a cache. Ex. 1104, 175, see PO Resp. 24; PO Sur-Reply 15–16. Petitioner argues that Hu teaches that the higher the L2Access:leak ratio, the longer the system should wait before powering down the cache. Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 16–17. Hu, however, does not expressly compare the effect of different L2Access:leak ratios other than to state that when the L2Access:leak ratio is 100, a small decay interval is detrimental to performance and power. Ex. 1104, 175. As Patent Owner correctly asserts, Hu does not describe using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine an appropriate decay interval, nor does Hu describe using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine whether to power down a portion of a cache. See PO Sur-Reply 17–18.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,020,014 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,020,014
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 12, 2020 · IPR2018-01040 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 10, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not teach or support adding the separately claimed third voltage reference.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that we should not address the patentability of claim 9 in this Decision. See PO Resp. 63–64. Rather, following Federal Circuit case law, we treat claim 9 as if it never existed. See Gunn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.”). Consistent with other Board decisions in which some, but not all, challenged claims have been disclaimed after institution, we address the patentability only of the remaining claims. See LG Elecs., Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., IPR2018-00673, Paper 48 at 3 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2019) (Final Written Decision); Yamaha Golf Car, Paper 63 at 3; Baker Hughes, Paper 74 at 6, 11–12. We also agree with Patent Owner that we should not enter adverse judgment as to claim 9. See PO Sur-reply 26–27. Arthrex, the case relied on by Petitioner, does not mandate a different outcome. By its terms, 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2) permits disclaimer to be construed as a request for adverse action when there are “no remaining claim[s] in the trial.” That was the situation in Arthrex. 880 F.3d at 1347 (“Arthrex, Inc. disclaimed all claims that were the subject of the petition.”). Here, in contrast, several claims remain in the trial. Furthermore, Arthrex does not support Petitioner’s patent are disclaimed.” Pet. Reply 27. The Arthrex language quoted by Petitioner compares disclaimer of an “entire patent” under § 42.73(b)(1) with disclaimer of “some of the claims” of the patent (i.e., fewer than all claims in the patent but all challenged claims so there are no remaining claims in the trial) under § 42.73(b)(2). 880 F.3d at 1350. Neither situation is present here when only one claim (claim 9) has been disclaimed and several challenged claims (claims 1–4, 10, 12, and 13) remain in the trial.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’207 patent “would have had at least a[n] M.S. degree in electrical engineering and would have at least two years of experience with circuit design.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32). In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the asserted prior art and adopted Petitioner’s position, which Patent Owner did not oppose in the Preliminary Response. Inst. Dec. 14 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Neither Patent Owner, in its Response, nor Dr. Ipek, in his declaration, proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Ipek, however, states that “[f]or purposes of the subject IPR proceedings, I have been asked to employ [Petitioner’s proposed] standard of a person of ordinary skill, but I do not offer the opinion that it is the correct standard.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 19. Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary determination is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one least an M.S. degree in electrical engineering and at least two years of experience with circuit design. See Inst. Dec. 14; Pet. 17.” slip op. at 18

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

    “the complete record developed during this inter partes review, we again conclude that the “third voltage reference” must be separate from the “second voltage reference.” We begin with the language of claim 1, which recites a first voltage reference, a second voltage reference, and a third voltage reference as separate elements.7 “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The terms “first,” “second,” and “third” are terms used to distinguish separate elements of a claim. See Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The use of the terms ‘first’ and ‘second’ is a common patent-law convention to distinguish between repeated instances of an element or limitation.”). Although Gillette and 3M address whether such terms impose a numerical or serial limitation, they nevertheless support Patent Owner’s position that enumerated elements typically are not construed to be the same element. See Sur-reply 11–12. Other cases cited by Patent Owner also support its position. See id. at 12 (citing Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 935–39 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (construing “first” and “second” disks as separate and discrete disks); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1405) (Fed. Cir. 1996)” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art would have sought to reduce power consumption in Takahashi to address the well-known problem of current leakage, and that providing a separate voltage reference for transistor 223 in Takahashi’s Figure 15 (i.e., a third voltage reference) would have achieved that goal. Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 88). But the only evidence Petitioner relies on for adding the proposed third voltage reference is the testimony of Dr. Stojanovic. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 88). Without any additional supporting evidence, Dr. Stojanovic’s testimony is insufficient to supply the missing “third voltage reference,” which is a key limitation of claim 1. See K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 36 (Nov. 2019)9 (“[I]n an obviousness analysis, conclusory assertions from a third party about general knowledge in the art cannot, without supporting evidence of record, supply a limitation that is not evidently and indisputably within the common knowledge of those skilled in the art. . . . In other words, expert testimony may explain ‘patents and publications,’ but is not a substitute for disclosure in a prior art reference itself.” (citing K/S Himpp, 751 F.3d at 1365)); see also Inst. Dec. 30–31 (reaching the same conclusion on the preliminary record). Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 7,706,207 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,706,207
• Campbell Soup Company / Campbell Sales Company et al. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 2, 2018 · IPR2017-00087 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 were cancelled at Patent Owner’s request; claims 27, 28, and 32–35 were not shown unpatentable over the instituted §103 grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the earliest priority date of the claims, would have had either: “(1) a Bachelor’s Degree in Industrial Design and at least 1-2 years of experience in designing gravity feed display dispensers, or (2) 5-10 years of experience in designing gravity feed display dispensers.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Patent Owner does not propose an explicit level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art 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), we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 18

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

    “construed according to their 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, 2144–46 (2016). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In our Institution Decision, we construed several claim terms recited in claims 1–17. Inst. Dec. 13–20. Patent Owner requests cancellation of claims 1–16 and we did not institute inter partes review of claim 17. Thus, none of the claim terms we construed previously are at issue in the trial. Additionally, Patent Owner’s Response and Sur-Reply and Petitioner’s Reply do not request that we construe any additional claim terms. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms to resolve the controversy before us. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 15

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

    “how or why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been led to combine Weichselbaum and Nesso in the manner claimed. On that point, the Petition rests on bare opinion testimony that is not tethered to any disclosure in the prior art or other objective proof. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168–170). We are mindful that a reason to combine prior art may exist “in the content of the public prior art, in the nature of the problem addressed by the invention, or even in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.” Princeton Biochemicals Inc. v. Beckman Coulter Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2005). But when we turn to the opinion testimony that undergirds Petitioner’s argument on the reasons to combine, we find no objective proof and inadequate reasoning. Id. Ultimately, Petitioner presents two very weak reasons based on unstated and unexplained factual assumptions in support of its view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to modify Weichselbaum. Additionally, as explained above, Petitioner takes conflicting positions as to how Nesso’s second chute would be incorporated in Weichselbaum’s device and the record remains unclear as to the precise structure resulting from Petitioner’s combination. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to provide sufficient clarity regarding the specific modifications to Weichselbaum, fails to provide a sufficient reason with rational underpinning as to why and how one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Weichselbaum in light of Nesso, and appears, on this record, to engage in an impermissible exercise of hindsight reconstruction to make out a reason to combine the applied references in the manner claimed. Further, in light of the full trial record, including Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary considerations discussed below, we are persuaded that the bare opinions set forth in the Visser Declaration (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 168–170) are entitled to little weight. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Lack of factual support for” opinion testimony “going to factual determinations” may be of little probative value in validity determination.”).” slip op. at 36

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “specific product and that product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.’” WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1329 (citation omitted). The presumption is rebuttable, but “a patent challenger cannot successfully rebut the presumption with argument alone—it must present evidence.” Id. (citation omitted). Patent Owner has shown that the asserted objective evidence, discussed further below, is tied to a specific product and that product “is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.” Id. (quoting J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “This showing––that the specific products are embodiments of the claimed invention and that the proffered objective evidence relates to these products—is sufficient to establish the presumption of nexus for the objective considerations at issue in this case.” Id. at 1330. It is, therefore, Petitioner’s burden to rebut that presumption. Id. at 1329 (“a patent challenger cannot successfully rebut the presumption with argument alone— it must present evidence”); see Tr. 46:20–47:8 (Petitioner agreeing that nexus is presumed and that Petitioner has the burden to overcome the presumption.). Petitioner does not rebut the presumption of nexus. First, Petitioner’s entire argument is phrased as challenging whether Patent Owner satisfied its burden of establishing nexus, as opposed to whether Petitioner rebuts the presumption of nexus. Pet. Reply 20–21 (“It is Patent Owner’s burden to establish a nexus.”) (citing CaptionCall LLC v. Ultratec Inc., IPR2013- 00540, Paper 78 at 50 (PTAB Mar. 3, 2015)). Second, Petitioner points to other factors, including higher prices and increased advertising, referred to in Campbell’s annual reports that contributed to increased soup sales. Pet. Reply 21–22. There is no dispute that other factors also contributed to the increase in soup sales. But, there is also no dispute that Campbell’s own statements, through its Annual Reports and Mr. Finnel’s interview, tie increased soup sales expressly to Gamon’s display racks. Additionally, Campbell’s internal presentation describes Gamon’s IQ Maximizer as “Breakthrough Gravity Feed Shelving” and attributes the following to the display racks based on the results of its study: • +13.6% volume lift for Corporate Brand • +10% volume lift for Condensed Segment • +9.3% volume lift for Campbell’s Condensed • +5.5% volume lift for Wet Soup Category • Encourages purchase of additional varieties • Billboard effect improves branding: 210% larger • Positive labor impact due to elimination of shelf conditioning Ex. 2032, 4. Although other factors had some degree of impact on commercial success,29 we determine that Patent Owner has established that an appreciable amount of Campbell’s increased commercial success of soup during the relevant time period is attributable to the display rack covered by claim 27 of the ’111 patent. Accordingly, Gamon’s sales to Campbell of about $31 million from 2002–2009 as well as a portion of the increased sales of Campbell’s soup using Gamon’s display racks provide a strong showing of commercial success of the commercial embodiment of claim 27 of the ’111 patent.” slip op. at 61

  Patent outcomesUS 8,827,111 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,827,111
• Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2018 · IPR2016-01452 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22, 27, 46–52, 54, and 55 were not shown unpatentable over Myers, Myers and Bostock, or Anderson because the references did not disclose the claimed fluid-flow limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “to determine whether it further supports the contention that Myers discloses the “flowing a fluid” step. Mr. Shale’s declaration discusses the operation of Myers in a manner that is virtually identical in substance to the content of the Petition. Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 49–53, with Pet. 21–24. Mr. Shale does not address directly the “flowing a fluid” step or otherwise explain how Myers discloses “flowing a fluid though an axial flowbore extending through the downhole tool.”7 Accordingly, we find Mr. Shale’s declaration fails to provide persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that Myers discloses “flowing a fluid though an axial flowbore extending through the downhole tool while preventing the fluid from communicating with a different flowpath of the downhole tool,” as required by claim 22, beyond what Myers, itself, discloses.” slip op. at 17

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Ex. 1021, 75:25 – 76:7. Mr. Underwood’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s contention that Myers discloses the “flowing a fluid” step. Mr. Underwood was asked whether there is “a fluid flowing within the Myers tool,” not whether Myers discloses “flowing a fluid though an axial flowbore extending through the downhole tool,” as required by claim 22. Id. Moreover, Mr. Underwood testified that “fluid doesn’t flow through the tool,” but rather just flows “into the tool.” Id. (emphases added)” slip op. at 20

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

    “claims 22, 27, 46, 47, 50–52, 54, and 55 of the ’099 patent. Inst. Dec. 22; see also Pet. 21–29. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires “the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Specifically, “[f]or a claim to be anticipated, each claim element must be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, and the claimed arrangement or combination of those elements must also be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in that same prior art reference.” Id. at 1332–33. Inherent disclosure is established where the reference “must necessarily include the unstated limitation.” Id. (emphasis omitted); see Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (holding that inherency can be established by extrinsic evidence that “make[s] clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill”).” slip op. at 10

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

    “C. ASSERTED OBVIOUSNESS OVER MYERS AND BOSTOCK Petitioner contends claim 22, and claims 48 and 49, which depend from claim 22, would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock. Pet. 29– 32. With regard to the “flowing a fluid” step of claim 22, Petitioner relies only on the contentions it set forth under its anticipation analysis with respect to claim 22. Pet. 31. Because Petitioner does not rely on Bostock to teach the recited “flowing a fluid” step, does not argue the step would have been obvious over the combination, and, for the reasons provided above, has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Myers discloses the step, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 22, 48, and 49 would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,099 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,099
• Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2018 · IPR2016-01440 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–20, and 28–42 were not shown unpatentable because Myers did not establish axial translation, and Myers with Bostock did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “radially” in the Petition. In its Reply, Petitioner equates “radially” to “outwardly” and “axially” to “downwardly.” Pet. Reply 7. Patent Owner contends that “axially and radially” would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art “to refer to movement relative the body and oriented relative to the axis of the body.” PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 82). In particular, Patent Owner contends that “axial” refers to “movement along or parallel to the axis of the body, and that “radial” refers to “the direction perpendicular to the axis of the body.” PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner contends its interpretation is consistent with the Specification of the ’099 patent and is supported by both its expert, Mr. Underwood, and Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Shale. Id. at 18–21 (citations omitted). For example, Mr. Shale testified that “‘[r]adially’ basically means left to right within the tubular body,” and “‘axially’ means up and down within the tubular body.” Ex. 2021, 189:5–7. Patent Owner further notes that Figures 4, 5, 11, and 12 of the ’099 patent illustrate arms 520 moving axially and radially relative to body 510. PO Resp. 20. In its Reply, Petitioner argues that “[c]ontrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, claim 1 of the ’099 [p]atent does not require that the body 10 be the frame of reference for the axial and radial movement.” Pet. Reply 13 n.3. Petitioner, however, cites no persuasive evidence to counter Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, Mr. Shale agreed that “radially” corresponds to “outward from the body,” and that “axially” corresponds to “up and down of the body.” Ex. 2021 190:4–19. Consistent with Mr. Shale’s testimony, Petitioner’s analysis purports to show that Myers discloses movement of moveable arms (slips 30) “both axially and radially relative to the body 10 [of Myers].” Pet. 19– 20. Petitioner is not alleging movement of the slips of Myers relative to a feature other than the body of Myers or in some other frame of reference. See Tr. 10:1–21. Thus, based on the evidence discussed above, we determine “translates axially and radially,” as recited in claim 1, means “moves parallel to and perpendicular to the body” and does not encompass movement consisting of only rotation about a pivot point. slip op. at 9

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

    “The steps discussed above address how slips 30 of Myers are deployed, but do not explain expressly whether slips 30 move axially relative to body 10 during deployment. With regard to the slips, Myers further provides that: [Slips 30] are positively movable laterally relative to the expander upon relative longitudinal movement between the expander and slips by inclined spline connections between the slips and expander, provided by oppositely directed side tongues 32 on each slip sliding in companion grooves 33 in the expander on opposite sides of slots 34 in the expander in which the slips are disposed. The lower ends of the slips 30 are coupled for movement longitudinally with one another by being connected to a slip ring 35 having generally T-shaped slots 36 therein receiving companion T-shaped heads 37 on the lower portions of the slips. Thus, the slips 30 move longitudinally jointly with the slip ring 35, although they are still permitted to move radially or laterally inwardly and outwardly of the slip ring, upon relative longitudinal movement between the slips 30 and expander 26. Ex. 1004, 3:2–17. In this passage, the movement of the slips includes “longitudinal movement,” which we understand generally corresponds to a vertical direction, as opposed to lateral movement in a horizontal direction. However, the movement is described relative to expander 26, not relative to body 10. See Pet. 13 (using “lateral” consistent with the horizontal extent and “longitudinal” consistent with the vertical extent). Thus, this passage also does not explain expressly whether slips 30 move axially relative to the body during deployment.” slip op. at 18

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

    “C. ASSERTED OBVIOUSNESS OVER MYERS AND BOSTOCK Petitioner contends claims 4, 33, and 34, each of which depends from claim 1, would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock. Pet. 24–26. According to Petitioner, “[e]ach of claims 4, 33, and 34 recites biasing either a sleeve or a movable arm to a collapsed position.” Id. at 24. Petitioner relies on Bostock as disclosing a spring for biasing. Id. As to the limitations of claim 1 from which claims 4, 33, and 34 depend, including the requirement of “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” Petitioner relies only on the contentions it set forth under its anticipation analysis with respect to claim 1. Because Petitioner does not rely on Bostock to teach the recited feature “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” does not argue the feature would have been obvious over the combination, and, for the reasons provided above, has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Myers teaches the feature, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 33, and 34 of the ’099 patent would have been obvious over Myers and Bostock.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Mr. Shale expresses the opinion that “slips 30 move both axially and radially relative to the body 10, along ‘generally T-shaped slots 36’ that are linear and angled relative to the axial direction,” we find that testimony to be conclusory and entitled to little weight, in part because this testimony does not account for the upward movement of setting sleeve 40. See Ex. 1010 ¶ 53 (quoting Ex. 1004, 3:11); see also In re Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); 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.”). Accordingly, we find Mr. Shale’s declaration fails to provide persuasive support for Petitioner’s contention that Myers discloses “one moveable arm translates axially and radially,” as required by claim 1, beyond what Myers, itself, discloses. We find more persuasive Mr. Underwood’s testimony, on behalf of Patent Owner, that Myers fails to disclose axial movement of slips 30. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 90–107. According to Mr. Underwood: slots [36 of Myers] are shown as angled relative to the slip ring 35. However, though the slips may move downward (axially) relative to the slip ring 35 as the slips move outward (radially), the slip ring 35 at the same time moves upward (axially) relative to the body. As such, the angle of the slots 36 within the slip ring 35 is not, itself, indicative of the overall movement of the slips. Id. ¶ 91. Mr. Underwood further reasons that “as the slip ring moves upwardly, the movement of the slips relative to the body in the axial direction is zero due to the slips sliding downward in the slots 36 relative to the slip ring 35 in equal proportion.” Id. ¶ 94. Mr. Underwood also” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,099 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,099
• Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster L.L.C.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2017 · IPR2016-01435 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–12, and 17–21, 23 were not proven unpatentable over Kauffman and Iwaguchi, with Howard for claims 18 and 20, because the motivation to combine was insufficiently shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been a “Bachelors of Science degree in Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering (or equivalent) or other Engineering major with a minor in Food Science and Technology and have had one or more years’ experience in the field of research and development of foods.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 74). Patent Owner does not propose an explicit level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. Dr. Keener, however, expressly adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. Ex. 2032 ¶ 63. Consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art 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), we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

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

    “means for re-circulating” In the Institution Decision, we preliminarily construed the claim term “means for re-circulating” as a means-plus-function limitation, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Id. at 17–18. We construed the function as “re-circulating said cooking oil” and identified the corresponding structure as “a pump and structural equivalents thereof.” Id. at 18–19. Neither party contests our construction of the term, and we maintain that construction here for the same reasons. slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that we need not expressly construe the term “adapter.” We reiterate the following from our Institution Decision: The term “adapter” appears in each claim of the ’691 patent. Neither party contends that the specification or prosecution history contains a lexicographic definition of the term, and neither party asserts that the specification or prosecution history contains a disclaimer of any portion of the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. From our review of the record, the structure and location of the adapter recited in the claims is provided by other claim language describing that (1) the adapter is located external to the fryer, (2) the sensor is disposed in the adapter, (3) the adapter is installed between two portions of the return pipe or drain pipe, and (4) the adapter has two opposite ends wherein one of the two ends is connected to one of the two portions of either the return pipe or the drain pipe and the other end is connected to the other portion of pipe.3 Inst. Dec. 9–10. In light of the above discussion, and because the focus of the parties’ dispute is not on the meaning of the term “adapter,” we decline to expressly construe the term further.” slip op. at 8

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claims; Motivation to Modify We instituted Petitioner’s challenge of these claims, and those that depend therefrom, based on Petitioner’s position that Kauffman disclosed most of the elements of the independent claims with the exception of a sensor capable of measuring an electrical property that is indicative of total polar materials. See, e.g., Inst. Dec. 31. Thus, the theory of obviousness, as discussed above, relies upon substituting Iwaguchi’s sensor for Kauffman’s analyzer. See id. at 31 (“Petitioner provides a second argument that relies upon a modification to Kauffman’s system, in which Iwaguchi’s sensor is employed instead of Kauffman’s analyzer. Because Petitioner provides adequate support for this second position, we address Patent Owner’s arguments based on this proposed combination.”). Petitioner confirmed at the oral argument that its Petition proposed a theory in which Iwaguchi’s sensor is simply swapped for that of Kauffman’s and did not present a more general theory as to modifying Kauffman’s sensor per the teachings of Iwaguchi: JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Did you include both of those alternative theories in your petition or is that something that you’re – you’ve come up with now in the reply? MR. VAIDYA: It’s something that we -- again, in the reply, we wanted to make it very clear that we aren’t going on a 102 basis and we are -- and what -- I think what -- we did have that alternate in the reply, so the alternate -- and I can point to paragraphs if that helps. And so, the idea is again primarily we’re going with the idea of swapping sensors, but that it would be possible to modify the sensor in Kauffman. JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Because in the petition, it was a swap of the sensors. MR. VAIDYA: That’s right. JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: And that’s what we instituted -- MR. VAIDYA: That’s correct. JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: -- based on. MR. VAIDYA: That’s correct. Tr. 13:21–14:12. We disregard Petitioner’s alternative position as it was an attempt to raise a new theory of unpatentability improperly for the first time in the Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“All arguments for the relief requested in a motion must be made in the motion. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,497,691 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,497,691
• Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2017 · IPR2016-00593 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held that claims 12–15, 21–23, 25–27, 33–38, 44, and 45 were not shown unpatentable because Pictometry was not established as a publicly accessible printed publication.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “Version 2.7 (“EFS 2.7 User Guide,” “Pictometry,” or “User Guide”) and, as the name suggests, is a user guide for the Pictometry software product. See Ex. 1004, xiii. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not demonstrate that Pictometry is prior art. PO Resp. 5–10. In our Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00594, we considered substantively the same arguments and evidence Patent Owner and Petitioner raise in this case. See IPR2016-00594 FWD 17–29; compare IPR2016-00594 Paper 31, 13–20 with PO Resp. 6– 13; and compare IPR2016-00594 Paper 33, 3–9 with Reply 4–11. In IPR2016-00594, we found Pictometry’s limited dissemination to some governmental entities subject to licensing restrictions was not sufficient to show public dissemination or public accessibility. IPR2016-00594 FWD 17–29. We adopt that same finding here. For the reasons explained in IPR2016-00594, we find that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Pictometry was publicly accessible so as to render it a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 311(b).” slip op. at 6

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “substantively the same as the arguments made in IPR2016-00594. In IPR2016-00594, we denied Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1004 (Pictometry), Exhibit 1011 (a Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition “database” copied from a web page), Exhibit 2010 (Cohasset Town Report 2008), 2011 (LARIAC1 Pictometry Training), Exhibit 2012 (LAR-IAC2 Product Guide), Exhibit 2020 (“GIS: Pictometry: Oblique Imagery training), Exhibit 2021 (“Pictometry License Guidelines”), and Exhibit 2022 (“Pictometry – April 19, 2007”). IPR2016-00594 FWD 5–17. We granted Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 2013 (article titled “Los Angeles County Extends its License Agreement with Pictometry for New Oblique Aerial Photos”), Exhibit 2014 (“Pictometry Administrative Training”), Exhibit 2015 (“Information about TXWILM Administrative Training”), Exhibit 2016 (“Pictometry Administrative Training”), Exhibit 2019 (“GIS Working Group Meeting Minutes”), Exhibit 2023 (“Welcome to Your End User Training”), Exhibit 2024 (“Electronic Field Study Getting Started Guide”), Exhibit 2025 (“Pictometry Announces Technical Advancements for GIS Professionals1”), and Exhibit 2026 (“Pictometry Announces Technical Advancements for GIS Professionals2”). Id. We adopt the same findings and conclusions here. For the reasons explained in IPR2016-00594, we deny the motion to exclude Exhibits 1004, 1011, 2010, 2011, 2020, 2021, and 2022, but grant the motion to exclude Exhibits 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026. See id.” slip op. at 5

  Patent outcomesUS 8,823,732 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,823,732
• Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 24, 2017 · IPR2016-00594 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 1–10 and 13–20 unpatentable because it failed to establish that Pictometry was a publicly accessible printed publication.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMixed

    “Mot. Reply 3. Given the sequence of events, there is no prejudice to Petitioner, who introduced these documents and was served objections at an early stage. Patent Owner apparently cited to the documents in its Patent Owner Response to preserve the right to substantively respond to these documents rather than wait to see if they were presented in Petitioner’s Reply. Pursuant to our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3), we do not dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude due to allegedly untimely filed objections.” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “are also prohibited. Id. The MAPC Agreement states under “Confidentiality of Licensed Products” that the Licensed Products are commercially valuable, proprietary products owned by Pictometry and are treated by Pictometry as confidential and contain substantial trade secrets of Pictometry. Ex. 2009, 16, Article 8.4. The licensee agrees that it will not disclose, provide a copy of, or disseminate the Licensed Products and that its personnel will protect the Licensed Products from unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, and dissemination, and that access to the Licensed Products and each part thereof will be strictly limited. Id. We acknowledge that these represent significant limitations on the dissemination of the User Guide.” slip op. at 21

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “involving the EFS software and provides no evidence that the EFS software and the EFS 2.7 User Guide were actually maintained confidential by the parties of the MAPC Agreement, or that the EFS software and the EFS 2.7 User Guide were inaccessible to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Reply 9. However, this improperly puts the burden to disprove public accessibility on Patent Owner. Although Patent Owner challenges whether Pictometry is a printed publication, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in an inter partes review). Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable, and one aspect of such a showing is that the references relied upon are patents or printed publications. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 311(b) 316(e).” slip op. at 22

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

    “preponderance of the evidence that Pictometry was publicly accessible so as to render it a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). C. Anticipation of Claims by Pictometry Petitioner asserts that claims 1–10 and 13–20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pictometry. Pet. 16. As noted above, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that Pictometry is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Thus, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that that claims 1–10 and 13–20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pictometry.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,542,880 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,542,880
• Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00590 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 10, 11, 14, and 19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the asserted art lacked a required movable-marker limitation and objective indicia outweighed the obviousness evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We do not agree with Petitioner that Avrahami’s pointing to and identifying seed points, constitutes movement of a first visual marker. Rather, as Patent Owner explains, “prior to the user’s click, the seed point does not exist, and thus there is nothing to move.” See PO Resp. 18 (citing 2008 ¶ 56). Avrahami’s characterization of the already-placed seed point as the “initial 2D seed point” supports Patent Owner’s position. See Ex. 1003, 44. The user cannot move an object that does not yet exist, and Petitioner offers no support to suggest that Avrahami’s seed points somehow exist before the user places them by clicking. See Pet. 14; Reply 2–4. There is also no indication that after placing the seed point, the user can move its location. See Ex. 2008 ¶ 56. To the contrary, Avrahami describes the algorithm as “fully automatic” after the user places the seed point. Ex. 1003, 43.” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We note that in Reply, Petitioner makes an alternative argument that “placement of subsequent seed points after placement of a first seed point, as well as the addition of segmentations around such seed points, qualifies as ‘movement.’” Reply 3. We decline to reach this argument, however, because Petitioner raised it for the first time in its Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) (requiring that a petition must identify “the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge” and explaining that “[t]he Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner

  Patent outcomesUS 8,818,770 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,818,770
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00306 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 63 was not shown unpatentable because Spinney does not disclose performing the selecting and determining steps in parallel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “First, we give no credit to Dr. Chao’s opinion in this regard because it is not supported by Spinney. Specifically, we give no weight to Dr. Chao’s opinion that “Spinney makes clear that the CAM lookup and the hashing function (i.e., the forwarding lookup) take place at the same time.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Instead, we find that the parallel operations in Spinney are confined to (1) applying the hash function to the 48-bit address and (2) performing a CAM lookup of the same 48-bit address. For example, Spinney discloses in Figure 8 that incoming address field 85 is subjected to hash function 86 to produce another 48-bit value. See id. at Fig. 8, 15:21−24; 16:16−19 (“The 48-bit destination address 61 from an incoming packet is simultaneously subjected to the hash function 86 and a CAM match” (emphasis added)), 16:44−46 (“this compare in the CAM is done in parallel with the hash function” (emphasis added)). The application of the hash function and the performance of the hash lookup are two different operations that produce different results. The hash function application produces a hashed 48-bit value, while the hash lookup results in pointing to an entry in the translation table that includes the gigaheader information, for processing the packet. See id. at Fig. 8 (identifying hash function 86 applied to input address 85, resulting in hashed address 89); 15:60−63. Spinney further discloses that the hash lookup is performed only if a CAM match is not found and, therefore, must occur after the CAM lookup is performed. Id. at 16:20–26 (“[I]f a CAM match is found in CAM 23, an index into the translation table 94 is immediately generated as indicated by the line 100. If not, the 16-bit field 88 of the hashed address 87 is used to index into the hash table 89 . . . .” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 14

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

    “is not supported by Spinney. Specifically, we give no weight to Dr. Chao’s opinion that “Spinney makes clear that the CAM lookup and the hashing function (i.e., the forwarding lookup) take place at the same time.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Instead, we find that the parallel operations in Spinney are confined to (1) applying the hash function to the 48-bit address and (2) performing a CAM lookup of the same 48-bit address. For example, Spinney discloses in Figure 8 that incoming address field 85 is subjected to hash function 86 to produce another 48-bit value. See id. at Fig. 8, 15:21−24; 16:16−19 (“The 48-bit destination address 61 from an incoming packet is simultaneously subjected to the hash function 86 and a CAM match” (emphasis added)), 16:44−46 (“this compare in the CAM is done in parallel with the hash function” (emphasis added)). The application of the hash function and the performance of the hash lookup are two different operations that produce different results. The hash function application produces a hashed 48-bit value, while the hash lookup results in pointing to an entry in the translation table that includes the gigaheader information, for processing the packet. See id. at Fig. 8 (identifying hash function 86 applied to input address 85, resulting in hashed address 89); 15:60−63. Spinney further discloses that the hash lookup is performed only if a CAM match is not found and, therefore, must occur after the CAM lookup is performed. Id. at 16:20–26 (“[I]f a CAM match is found in CAM 23, an index into the translation table 94 is immediately generated as indicated by the line 100. If not, the 16-bit field 88 of the hashed address 87 is used to index into the hash table 89 . . . .” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 7,023,853 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,023,853

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.