• Apple Inc. v. Omni Medsci, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 3, 2022 · IPR2021-00453 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7, and 15–23 are unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds; claims 3–6 and 8–14 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that challenged claims 1, 2, 7, and 15–23 are unpatentable and that Petitioner has not demonstrated challenged claims 3–6 and 8–14 to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “7 The level of ordinary skill in this case is discussed in the Decision to Institute and is uncontested. Dec. to Inst. 7–8.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Specification concerning the terms “identify” and “detect” involve actions not recited in the claims does not change the fact that these different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. The dictionary definitions of “detect” and “identify” are different. The use of the term “identify” in claims 3 and 8 and the use of a different term, i.e., “detect,” in claim 16 indicates that the claims 3 and 8 mean something different from claim 16. Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption that different claim terms have matter. See SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, 820 F.3d 419, 431 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, we decline to adopt Petitioner’s proposal to construe the terms “identify an object” and “detect an object” to have the same meaning. Instead, we construe these terms consistent with the dictionary definitions of “identify” and “detect,” i.e., we construe “to identify an object” to mean “to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing,” and we construe “to detect an object” to mean “to discover or notice the existence or presence of something.” We address the specific implications of these constructions in our discussion of claims 3, 8, and 16.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Specification concerning the terms “identify” and “detect” involve actions not recited in the claims does not change the fact that these different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. The dictionary definitions of “detect” and “identify” are different. The use of the term “identify” in claims 3 and 8 and the use of a different term, i.e., “detect,” in claim 16 indicates that the claims 3 and 8 mean something different from claim 16. Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption that different claim terms have matter. See SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, 820 F.3d 419, 431 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, we decline to adopt Petitioner’s proposal to construe the terms “identify an object” and “detect an object” to have the same meaning. Instead, we construe these terms consistent with the dictionary definitions of “identify” and “detect,” i.e., we construe “to identify an object” to mean “to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing,” and we construe “to detect an object” to mean “to discover or notice the existence or presence of something.” We address the specific implications of these constructions in our discussion of claims 3, 8, and 16.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 10,517,484 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,517,484
• Scentair Technologies, LLC v. Prolitec, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2022 · IPR2021-00014 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–14, 21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 15–20, 22, and 23 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We determine that “toward” in the context of these claims means “in the direction of.” This definition is consistent with the ordinary dictionary definition that Patent Owner advances. Resp. 10; Ex. 2003, 3 (ordinary dictionary defining toward as “in the direction of” or, alternatively, as “along a course leading to”). Patent Owner argues that the ’976 patent describes embodiments supporting Patent Owner’s construction of “toward,” but directs us to no disclosure that requires “aiming.” To the contrary, the ’976 patent suggests that liquid moves “toward” something such as an end point so long as it advances along a path leading to the end point. Reply 1–4 (Petitioner collecting examples). For example, ’976 patent Figures 5 and 6 illustrate fluid taking a spiral flow pattern to outlet zone 174. The specification explains that the liquid takes a “curvilinear path . . . as it moves from the inlet 172 toward the outlet zone 174.” Ex. 1001, 10:50–55; see also Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 8–16 (Dr. Morse providing testimony regarding this and other ’976 patent embodiments). Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s position, the specification uses the word “toward” to describe liquid that moves in the direction of the outlet––without reference to aiming––and even where the liquid’s movement encounters obstacles or otherwise fails to travel in a straight line to the outlet. We agree with Petitioner that “‘aimed’ is found nowhere in the intrinsic evidence and is contrary to the specification” of the ’976 patent. Reply 1. Further, Patent Owner’s own extrinsic evidence does not include the word “aimed” in the definition of “toward.” Ex. 2003, 3. Against that backdrop, for reasons stated above, we determine that “toward” in the context of the challenged claims means “in the direction of.”” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “least three years of experience working with, designing, or studying liquid diffusion devices or similar devices.” Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶ 13. Patent Owner does not dispute that definition or advance an alternative definition. The prior art asserted in the Petition appears, on this record, as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To the extent a more specific definition is required, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition (Pet. 16) because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’976 patent and the prior art references that form the basis for Petitioner’s challenges. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–43 (abstract and overview of technical field of invention of the ’976 patent); Ex. 1004, code (57), ¶ 3 (abstract and background of Rosener’s invention); Ex. 1005, code (57), 1:1–13:12 (abstract and background of Rubin’s invention).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Based on the record before us, the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position. King is concerned with delivering small particles to a patient: King states, for example, that an object of its invention is to “deliver to the patient essentially the same particle size distribution of the aerosol mist that originates from the nebulizer itself.” Ex. 1006 2:19–22; see also id. at [57] (stating that its apparatus delivers medication “in essentially the same particle size distribution of the aerosol mist”); 1:7–10 (stating that invention “delivers a mist of properly sized aerosol particles”); 1:60–65 (stating that invention “functions in a manner to assure that the medicament particles delivered to the patient will be of optimum size”). King states that in “this latest form of the invention this important baffle means comprises a generally spiral-shaped wall 100 (Fig. 20).” Id. at 6:20– 22. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that design of the passage, through which aerosolized particles pass, will affect the size of output particles. Ex. 1003 ¶ 60; Ex. 1004 ¶ 27 (teaching that, for example, “tight bends” may be use to separate small airborne particles from big particles). We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the spiral structure of King’s passage is an example of a “tight bend” (as referenced by Rosener) that can help control what size of particle progresses through the entire passage. Ex. 1006 6:16–22 (explaining that “this important baffle means comprises a generally spiral-shaped wall 100” and serves to “provid[e] a circuitous fluid flow path through the first chamber”)8; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56–61. A person of ordinary skill in the art’s use of a spiral structure, as taught by King, to further control particle size via tight bends, as taught by Rosener, would have been obvious because it would have been a “predictable use of a prior art elements according to their established function.” KSR Int’l, Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Rather than a spiral disrupting Rosener’s separation as Patent Owner argues, the combined teachings of Rosener and King suggest that King’s spiral would assist in achieving separation and particle size control (as Rosener and King teach). Dr. Morse’s testimony is credible in this regard and supports our findings and conclusion along with the references themselves. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–56. Thus, for the reasons explained above, Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claims 2 and 11 of the ’976 patent would have been obvious over Rosener in view of King.” slip op. at 24

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Ultimately, to determine whether Rosener’s suggested tortuous passage is a structure capable performing the functionality of claims 7 and 16, we would need to determine that, because of Rosener’s tortuous passage, liquid would take more time to leak when the device is upended than if the tortuous passage was not present. The record before us, however, does not adequately support such a finding. Here again, the paucity of information provided by Petitioner, who bears the burden of showing unpatentability, tips against a conclusion that these claims are proven unpatentable. Although tight bends and corners might make the flow take longer to leak from the cartridge (as Petitioner urges at Reply 4–6), Petitioner does not establish that this is the case and, moreover, does not establish that it is not the case that the tight bends and corners might make the liquid take less time to leak from the cartridge. As Patent Owner argues, where a channel narrows in a direction of flow, a fluid’s speed may increase in accordance with Bernoulli’s principle. Sur-Reply 7–8.10 This principle is evidenced by the Svoboda reference, which explains that gas will travel faster through the “necked down portion 29” of its venturi tube. Ex. 1008, 4:4–8, Fig. 1, 2 (illustrating necked down portion 29). Accordingly, the record is unclear as to whether the tight bends and corners would speed up or slow down the flow of liquid from the cartridge. Additionally, Rosener does not refer to its tortuous passage as preventing leaking, and if the tortuous passage were capable of doing so, it is unclear why the valve would be necessary. See 10 The record also lacks evidence regarding to what extent other factors such as fluid viscosity, pressure differentials, and friction losses could potentially also affect flow speed. This lack of evidence, again, underscores Petitioner’s failure to meet its burden to show unpatentability of these claims. generally Ex. 1004; see also Ex. 2005 ¶ 68 (Dr. Mello’s written testimony on point). In any event, for reasons explained by Patent Owner, Petitioner’s analysis regarding the path and speed of liquid flow when Rosener’s device is upended is insufficient to support the unpatentability of claims 7 and 16 (Sur-Reply 1–18), at least because Petitioner fails to take account of leakage through orifice 401 or because of Rosener’s express need for a valve to provide for a device that “may be inverted without causing the fragrance oil to pour out” (id. at 12). See Ex. 1004 Fig. 2D (illustrating position of orifice 401), ¶ 33 (describing Rosener’s valve); see also Resp. 11–17 (Patent Owner’s arguments); Pet. 29–30, 33; Reply 4–6 (Petitioner’s analysis).” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 9,745,976 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,745,976
• Scentair Technologies, LLC v. Prolitec, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2022 · IPR2021-00012 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 6, 8–10, 13–16, 18, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board did not find claims 1–4, 7, 11, 12, 17, 19–21, 23, and 24 unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “factual determination that provides a primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would typically have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or chemical engineering as well as at least three years of experience working with, designing, or studying liquid diffusion devices or similar devices.” Pet. 16; Ex. 1003 ¶ 13. Patent Owner does not dispute that definition or advance an alternative definition. See Resp. 79 (repeating Petitioner’s definition). The prior art asserted in the Petition, on this record, is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To the extent a more specific definition is required, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition (Pet. 16) because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’004 patent and the prior art references that form the basis for Petitioner’s challenges. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–43 (abstract and overview of technical field of invention of the ’004 patent); Ex. 1004, code (57), ¶ 3 (abstract and background of Rosener’s invention); Ex. 1005, code (57), 1:1–13:12 (abstract and background of Rubin’s invention).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We determine that “toward” in the context of these claims means “in the direction of.” Ex. 2003, 3. That definition is consistent with the dictionary definition advanced by Patent Owner. Resp. 7–11; Ex. 2003, 3 (ordinary dictionary defining toward as “in the direction of” or, alternatively, as “along a course leading to”). Patent Owner argues that the ’004 patent describes embodiments supporting Patent Owner’s construction of “toward,” but directs us to no disclosure that requires “aiming.” Id. To the contrary, the ’004 patent suggests that liquid moves “toward” something, such as an end point, so long as it advances along a path leading to the end point. Reply 1–4 (Petitioner collecting examples). For example, in the ’004 patent, Figures 5 and 6 illustrate fluid taking a spiral flow pattern to outlet zone 174. The specification explains that the liquid takes a “curvilinear path . . . as it moves from the inlet 172 toward the outlet zone 174.” Ex. 1001, 10:34–36; see Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 8–16 (Dr. Morse providing testimony regarding this and other ’004 patent embodiments). Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s position, the specification uses the word “toward” to describe liquid that moves in the direction of the outlet––without reference to aiming––and even where the liquid’s movement encounters obstacles or otherwise fails to travel in a straight line to the outlet. We agree with Petitioner that “‘aimed’ is found nowhere in the intrinsic evidence and is contrary to the specification” of the ’004 patent. Reply 1. Further, Patent Owner’s own extrinsic evidence does not include the word “aimed” in the definition of “toward.” Ex. 2003, 3. Against that backdrop, for reasons stated above, we determine that “toward” in the context of the challenged claims means “in the direction of.”” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We recognize, in that regard, that a witness “must at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art” in order to opine about the level of skill in the art. Kyocera Secco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Dr. Morse has at least the qualifications of an ordinarily skilled artisan and is qualified to provide opinions as to what an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood as of April 22, 2014. Based on Dr. Morse’s statement of qualifications and curriculum vitae, as well as his stated familiarity with the state of the prior art at the time of the invention, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Morse is qualified to provide opinions keyed to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–5, 9, 11, App’x pp. 69–73. In any event, to the extent we agree that Petitioner establishes unpatentability as explained above, the prior art references themselves are adequate for Petitioner’s showing of unpatentability even if we were to provide little or no weight to Dr. Morse’s testimony.” slip op. at 61

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

    “It is not clear, on this record, that guiding surfaces 10 are formed as spirals, as opposed to flat surfaces arranged to “project” and “extend[]” into the atomizing space in a helical pattern. Id.; see Resp. 37–38. Nor is it clear, on this record, how guiding surfaces 10 relate, if at all, to the formation of the transient airflow path defined by the “spiral vortex” described in Knoch, which forms only during normal operation of the device. Id. Knoch indicates that the spiral vortex is formed as a result of the placement and orientation of openings 2 and 3, and that “homogenization” of the aerosolized particles occurs, not via impaction with guiding surfaces 10, but rather, as a result of particles traveling a transient airflow path defined by the spiral vortex. Ex. 1006, Figs. 1, 2, 2:48–61, 3:10–4:25, 5:14–38, 5:56–63; see Pet. 31–32 (relying on “homogenization” that occurs when “vaporized liquid” traverses a transient airflow path defined by the “spiral vortex” in Knoch’s device) (quoting Ex. 1006, 3:26–29 5:28–32); see supra 44 n.13. To be clear, Knoch’s spiral vortex is a transient path of airflow that forms only during normal operation of the device, and Petitioner directs us to no persuasive information that Rosener employs any comparable approach “to perform the same functions within the same general structure.” Pet. 24. The lack of analysis provided in the Petition on that key point undermines this challenge. Id. at 23–25, 31–32; Reply 9–10 (totality of Petitioner’s information on that point); see supra 44 n.13. Even if we set aside that problem, however, we find, in the alternative, that Petitioner fails to explain adequately how or why Knoch would have suggested a tortuous passage (as opposed to a transient airflow path) that spirals between the inlet and outlet zone of Rosener’s insert. Without adequate analysis, Petitioner merely refers us to Figure 2E of Rosener, which shows a tortuous passage extending from inlet 401 to outlet zone 240, then directs us to guiding surfaces 10 illustrated in Knoch’s Figure 1. Pet. 31–32. The paucity of analysis provided in the Petition, particularly on the question of where, how, and why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have included a spiraling impaction surface extending from Rosener’s inlet 401 to outlet zone 240 in view of Knoch, persuades us that the proposed modification is driven, not by any suggestion in the prior art, but rather, by an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. Id.; see Resp. 27–39 (Patent Owner’s arguments on that point). Petitioner does not establish that Knoch teaches a spiraling” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 9,162,004 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,162,004
• Veeam Software Corp. v. Hybir Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01038 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30, 32, 33, 35, and 37–40 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 31, 34, and 36 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “E. Level of Skill in the Art To determine the level of an ordinarily skilled artisan, various factors” slip op. at 10

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

    “claim terms for construction at that stage of the proceeding, and we did not construe any claim terms expressly as none of the terms were in dispute. Inst. Dec. 22. In the briefing following institution, Patent Owner proposed a construction for the term “inventory,” see, e.g., PO Resp. 21–28, and it became clear that the parties dispute the meaning of the term. Accordingly, we address the parties’ proposed constructions for “inventory” and the arguments they present for those constructions.” slip op. at 13

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

    “As set forth above, we resolved those disputed issues in favor of Petitioner. For the portions of the preamble and limitations of claim 35 that are not recited in claim 30, we have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for claim 35 and are persuaded that Field teaches or suggests the preamble and claim limitations. Pet. 25–28 (and the exhibits cited therein). Thus, we find that Field teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 35. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has proven that claim 35 would have been obvious over Field.” slip op. at 55

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

    “metadata into its signature generating algorithm to create a more robust signature. Ex. 1005 ¶ 46. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use such an augmented signature generating algorithm in Field’s environment. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40. Thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Field’s cryptographic signature generating algorithm so it would compute a file’s signature using a file’s metadata. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40. Accordingly, Field and Anderson disclose that “the cryptographic signature is also computed with the metadata.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40.” slip op. at 76

  Patent outcomesUS 8,051,043 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,051,043
• Veeam Software Corp. v. Hybir Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01037 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–15, 18, 19, 21–29, and 34 are unpatentable as obvious over Field and Anderson; claims 3, 4, 7, 16, 17, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and Petitioner does not address our preliminary finding in its Reply. Accordingly, we see no reason to disturb that finding, and, therefore, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least three to five years of academic or industry experience in the fields of data storage, data backup, data restoration, data replication and deduplication, and/or data synchronization.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Accordingly, we find that the record does not support construing” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “away and (2) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to not transmit an inventory with multiple signatures due to a concern with backup efficiency. With respect to whether Field teaches away, Patent Owner’s argument is premised, in part, on a requirement derived from its proposed construction of “inventory”—that the claimed “inventory” must include additional data, such as filenames and directories. As discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction. Similar to Patent Owner’s earlier argument of a teaching away, Patent Owner fails to identify anything in Field that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from creating an inventory, as properly construed. Accordingly, we do not find that Field teaches away from using or creating an inventory.” slip op. at 81

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

    “144, 202; Pet. Reply 20–21; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 59–62. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not proven that claims 3 and 16 would have been obvious over Field and Anderson. Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 129–130.” slip op. at 101

  Patent outcomesUS 8,051,043 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,051,043
• Netflix, Inc. / Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2020-00648 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 16, 17, and 19 are unpatentable over Pyle and Marusi; claims 1–6, 8–10, 13, and 14 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we found that Petitioner’s proposal was consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position. Inst. Dec. 8–9 (citing 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)). As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, we see no reason to disturb that finding. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in adaptive streaming and content management” or “a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in adaptive streaming or content management” and that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” See Inst. Dec. 8–9 (setting forth and adopting Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 10

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

    “the case law makes clear that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising’” unless an “extremely limited” exception applies. See Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 812 F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting KCJ Corp., 223 F.3d at 1356; Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Here, claim 1 recites the transitional phrase “comprising,” meaning it is open-ended, and, therefore, the usual meaning of “a” as “one or more” would have been expected absent an extremely limited exception. In considering whether an exception applies, our review of the ’515 patent fails to indicate that the patentee intended the phrase to mean anything other than the usual meaning of “one or more.” Patent Owner asserts that “[t]he plain language of the claim clearly indicates only a single [list] is used to list multiple assets” and quotes two portions of the Specification, which state “a list of assets that satisfies criteria” and “a list of assets to which a . . . device is granted access.” PO Sur-reply 12–13 (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:60–67) (citing Ex. 1001, 2:23–34, 3:1–5, 4:21–23, 17:59–66). Although claim 1 of the ’515 patent recites “assets” in the plural, we fail to see how that conveys that the term “a” would have been understood as limited to “one.” Notably, neither party has identified any inconsistency, in the claims or other portions of the Specification (including the portions quoted and/or cited by Patent Owner), resulting from construing “a” as “one or more.” And, we find that there is no reason why the claims could not be met under the construction of “a” as “one or more.” Thus, we find that the ’515 patent does not “evince [ ] a clear intent to limit a or an to one.” See Convolve, 812 F.3d at 1321 (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, we construe the term “a” in “a list of assets” as “one or more” such that the phrase “a list of assets” means “one or more list of assets.” Considering next the phrase “the list of assets” recited in limitation 1[e], the parties do not dispute that the use of the term “the” means that “the list of assets” refers back to the one or more list of assets retrieved in limitation 1[d] and discussed above. See PO Resp. 1–2; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. Similarly, the parties do not dispute that the phrase “the filtered list of assets,” recited in limitation 1[e], refers back to the list of assets resulting from the filtering step of limitation 1[d]. See PO Resp. 3–4; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. We agree with the parties that each of these phrases refers back to the previous instance of the recited terms.” slip op. at 15

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

    “motivated to combine these teachings for several reasons. Pet. 21. First, Petitioner contends “the combination is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices because using the capabilities of a client device to choose appropriately formatted content was a well-known technique.” Id. Petitioner asserts that “implementing Marusi’s techniques for organizing multiple representations and choosing among them based upon a client device’s capabilities would predictably function in Pyle’s system, which similarly seeks to target video content based on particular client device types and parameters.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 10:57–11:10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 147). Second, Petitioner argues that “detecting a client device’s capabilities based upon client device identifiers was a common and known solution to the problem of supplying information in a format usable by the client device.” Pet. 21. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to combine Marusi’s teachings with Pyle because it is one solution, from a finite number of known, and predictable solutions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 148). Third, with respect to Marusi’s databases, Petitioner contends “[t]he combination of Marusi’s databases to manage the data in Pyle’s system uses a known technique to improve similar systems.” Pet. 21. In particular, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to combine Marusi’s database teachings with Pyle because Pyle teaches storing the same content in multiple, different representations.” Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1004, 9:64–10:21). Further, Petitioner argues that “[u]sing a database to store and manage multiple representations of the same data, or even to simply store voluminous data for retrieval, was an extremely well-known and common application of databases.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 149). Additionally, Dr. Reader opines that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the teachings of Pyle and Marusi were complementary, and therefore would have been motivated to combine Pyle with Marusi to enhance the efficiency of generating, storing, and delivering multimedia content tailored to the capabilities of particular playback devices.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 150.” slip op. at 27

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

    “Patent Owner that Petitioner and Dr. Reader fail to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pyle generates a top level index file by placing a manifest file in memory for transmission to a client device. Pet. 35; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 184. “Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little or no weight.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“Consolidated TPG”), 40–41, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (citing Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Here, there is no explanation or reason given for Petitioner’s assertion or Dr. Reader’s testimony and the connection, if any, is not otherwise apparent. Further, aside from Dr. Reader’s unexplained position, Petitioner has not pointed us to any evidence of record supporting the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that placement of a file in memory for transmission teaches generating the file as recited in limitation 1[f]. Accordingly, without any explanation whatsoever, the record is without a sufficiently supported basis upon which to make that finding, resulting in a failure of proof by Petitioner with respect to claim 1.11 10 We also note that Petitioner’s Reply does not seek to add a new argument for our consideration; rather, Petitioner’s Reply asserts, albeit incorrectly, that the argument was raised in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 15. 11 Although Petitioner’s Reply sets forth several arguments in response to other arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Response, those additional arguments do not address to this aspect of limitation 1[f]. See, e.g., Pet. c. Dependent Claims 4, 5, 8–10, and 14 Petitioner contends that the combination of Pyle and Marusi would have rendered the subject matter of claims 4, 5, 8–10, and 14 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 36–41. Claims 4, 5, 8–10, and 14 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, include limitation 1[f], as discussed above. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, Petitioner’s analysis of these claims suffers from the same deficiency.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,998,515 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,998,515
• Metall Zug AG / Haag-Streit AG et al. v. Carl Zeiss Meditec AGSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2021 · IPR2020-00300 · APJ Amber L Hagy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 21–26 were held unpatentable as obvious over Huber, Everett, and Lexer; claims 2, 27, 40, and 42 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 44 and 45 were entered.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “(7) Claim 1 Conclusion After having analyzed the entirety of the trial record and assigning” slip op. at 31

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “For the above reasons, Petitioner has not met its burden to” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 8,690,330 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,690,330
• Runway Safe Group AB v. Earthstone International LLC And W. Gene RamseySome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2021 · IPR2019-01490 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 and 13–16 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 12 was not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish its interconnected open porosity limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2019). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. After considering the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11 and 13–16 of the ’671 patent are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Petitioner has not met that burden with respect to claim 12.” slip op. at 2

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

    “any of Narmo, Hojaji, and Ramsey. Resp. 8, 16–17. On this record, we conclude it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of ACRP and Narmo, Hojaji, or Ramsey, as asserted by Petitioner. Moreover, we also conclude such combinations merely use specific foamed glass compositions in structures already using foamed glass compositions and that the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected to successfully do so. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 78, 81, 84. The simplicity of the technology and the reasonably high level of skill in the art support such a conclusion.” slip op. at 57

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “disclosed foamed glass aggregate bodies to have an “interconnected open porosity” is based on an allegation of inherency, where the open porosity forms because of weathering. See Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 75). Similar to our conclusion regarding Ground 6, we also find that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the subject matter of claim 12 would have been obvious over ACRP. We are directed to no evidence of record that the interconnected open porosity limitation would necessarily be present or would be the natural result of weathering, as asserted by Petitioner. See Endo Pharm., 894 F.3d at 1381. To the extent that Petitioner’s argument is premised on a KSR “obvious to try” rationale, as with Ground 6, we find Petitioner presents no evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had any reason to pursue the claimed interconnected open porosity, no evidence of a design need for such a structure, and no evidence of market pressure to solve any problem relating to foamed glass porosity. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Indeed, Petitioner failed to clearly articulate any obvious to try rationale in the Petition.” slip op. at 74

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “III. PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE OR EXCLUDE Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply for” slip op. at 77

  Patent outcomesUS 9,382,671 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,382,671
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2021 · IPR2019-01195 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13 and 14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kim; claims 17, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Kim and Lee because the proposed combination was inadequately explained.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “’026 patent would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, plus at least two years of experience in integrated circuit design, or alternatively a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of experience in integrated circuit design. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 49). In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposal 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), and, therefore, preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 15. Neither Patent Owner, in its Response, nor Dr. Annavaram, in his declaration, proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, Patent Owner states that “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s stated skill level for this response” (PO Resp. 26), and Dr. Annavaram similarly states that “[f]or the purpose of this declaration, I adopt Dr. Harris’ definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” (Ex. 2009 ¶ 24). Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Based on the complete record, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, plus at least two years of experience in integrated circuit design, or alternatively a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of experience in integrated circuit design. Inst. Dec. 15; see Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 49).” slip op. at 10

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

    “To the extent Patent Owner argues that these particularized selection clauses recited in different claims must have the same or similar meaning because they all use the word “selecting” (see PO Resp. 28–29), we disagree with Patent Owner. See IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We caution that claim language must be construed in the context of the claim in which it appears. Extracting a single word from a claim divorced from the surrounding limitations can lead construction astray. Claim language must be construed in the claim in which it appears.” (emphasis added)). The selection clauses recited in these claims are plainly different on the face of the claims when considering the material differences in the claim language set forth above. According the same meaning to the limitations that recite “select . . . based on” indicators, “select . . . when” certain conditions are met, and “select . . . out of a group” of values would be improper because it would blur the material differences in the claim language recited expressly in the claims. Instead, we interpret the selection clauses recited in the challenged claims “in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears” and “in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. In other words, we do not construe the single word “selecting” in isolation, but, rather, interpret the full selection clauses recited in the challenged claims in the context of the entire patent. Claim 13 recites “selecting, by the control circuit, a value of a control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator.” In our view, the plain meaning of this limitation is clear on the face of the claim—a value of a control signal is selected based on two indicators, the mode indicator and the leakage indicator.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Tr. 47:7–23. Because the output of Kim’s NAND gates will be different depending on the value of Kim’s memory cells C1–CN allowed to “pass through,” we agree with Petitioner that the value of Kim’s memory cells C1– CN (the claimed “leakage indicator”) “plays a role” in deciding what the output of Kim’s NAND gates (the claimed “value of the control signal”) will be. Moreover, Patent Owner acknowledged that the output of Kim’s NAND gate is determined based on the inputs to the NAND gates (i.e., the sleep signal input and the memory cell signal input). JUDGE CHUNG: But, knowing a little bit about how a NAND gate works, isn’t it the case that the input to the NAND gates, G1 through GN, with the input of the sleep signal and the C1 through CN signal, isn’t it the case that input to the NAND gate determines what the output is? MS. ZHONG: Okay. So any logic gate, the output will depend on the input. That’s for sure. Tr. 44:18–25; but see id. at 45:3–10 (stating that even if the “output is in control of the input, . . . that does not mean the selection is based on that input”). Thus, we find that Kim’s NAND gate (the claimed “control circuit”) operates to determine its output (the claimed “value of the control signal”) based on its input of the sleep signal (the claimed “mode indicator”) and the memory cell value input (the claimed “leakage indicator”). As discussed in Section III.B, the Specification indicates that “select[ing] the value of the control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator” recited in claim 13 is synonymous to determining the value based on the recited indicators. See Ex. 1101, 4:4–11. Thus, the evidence of record shows that Kim teaches “selecting, by the control circuit, a value of a control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator,” as recited in claim 13.” slip op. at 44

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence. First, although Petitioner proposes “[s]ubstituting Lee’s inputs of leakage current and temperature for generating a power gate control signal” (i.e., Lee’s “control signal (BIAS)”) for “Kim’s inputs of leakage current and other ‘stimuli’ for generating a power gate control signal” (Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 115)), neither Petitioner nor Dr. Harris explains adequately how they are proposing to “substitute” Kim’s control signal with Lee’s “control signal (BIAS).” For example, Figure A reproduced above does not show how Petitioner or Dr. Harris proposes to use Lee’s “control signal (BIAS)” in the proposed combination. Petitioner asserts that “[a]lthough Lee’s control signal is analog and Kim’s control signal is digital, it was well known to apply teachings in an analog domain to a digital domain, and conversions between analog and digital domains were easy to implement.” Pet. 66 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 121; Ex. 1115). Dr. Harris similarly states that Figures A and B show examples of obvious ways to use in Kim’s system Lee’s teaching of setting conductance of the array based on temperature. A POSA would have found both of these ways obvious. That Lee uses an analog control signal and Kim uses a digital control signal would have presented no obstacle to a POSA. . . . That is, converting analog circuit elements and signals to digital was well known long before the ’026 patent. Ex. 1102 ¶ 121 (emphases added) (citing (Ex. 1115) (“Analog-to-digital converters (ADC’s) are ubiquitous, critical components of software radio and other signal processing systems.”)). But Dr. Harris does not explain adequately how “to use in Kim’s system” the digitized BIAS signal of Lee. See id. The only additional input signal shown in Figure A compared to Figure 4 of Kim is the temperature line that has the value of 0 when the temperature is cold and the value of 1 when the temperature is hot. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 116 (Fig. A). There is no explanation of how the modified teaching of the BIAS signal of Lee (i.e., modified or converted to a digital signal) would have worked in the proposed combination of Figure A.” slip op. at 69

  Patent outcomesUS 8,081,026 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,081,026
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2021 · IPR2019-01194 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Kim and Lee under § 103; Petitioner did not prove claims 4, 5, and 7 unpatentable because the combination was not adequately supported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “determine that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the combination of Kim and Lee teaches “a mode indicator generator for generating a mode indicator that indicates a desired mode of the power gated circuit,” as recited in claim 1, and has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning for combining Kim and Lee to arrive at the subject matter of this claim limitation. c. Conclusion on Claim 1” slip op. at 64

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “F. Testimonial Evidence Petitioner relies on two Declarations from David Harris, Ph.D. in” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,081,026 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,081,026

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.