• Unified Patents, LLC v. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00775 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 27 and 28 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the petitioner did not establish that Olgaard or Acharya was prior art; the revised contingent motion to amend was dismissed as …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Relying on Dr. Freedman’s testimony, Unified argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) an undergraduate degree in electrical and computing engineering or a closely related field; and (2) two or more years of experience in wireless content transmission,” where “[m]ore relevant experience could compensate for less education, and vice versa.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–38). Flexiworld does not contest Unified’s description of the level of ordinary skill for this proceeding. See PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 67). Because Unified’s description is supported by uncontroverted testimonial evidence and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’257 patent, we adopt it for this decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:20–5:35 (“Technical Field” and “Background” sections of the ’257 patent, describing background knowledge relating to wireless content transmission between electronic devices).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Unified argues that “all terms should be given their plain meaning,” and does not propose any explicit constructions. See Pet. 8. In the context of this proceeding, Flexiworld agrees. See PO Resp. 29. We do not find it necessary to explicitly construe any terms to resolve the issues in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “2. Conclusion as to Obviousness For the reasons above, we determine that evidence independent of inventor testimony corroborates (1) a conception date no later than October 22, 2000 and (2) reasonably continuous diligence in reducing the claimed invention to practice until January 19, 2001. Having considered the evidence as a whole under a rule-of-reason analysis, we determine that Unified has not shown that the conception date for the claimed invention was on or after October 24, 2000, or that the inventors did not exercise reasonably continuous diligence during the critical period between October 24, 2000 and January 19, 2001. Unified relies on a priority date of October 24, 2000 for Olgaard and a priority date of December 22, 2000 for Acharya. See Pet. 1–2 & n.2; see also Ex. 1005, code (63); Ex. 1007, codes (22), (43). However, the corroborated conception date for claims 27 and 28 antedates the above priority dates for both Olgaard and Acharya. See supra Section III.C.1. Thus, Unified has not shown that either Olgaard or Acharya is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (2006). Unified provides no theory of obviousness that does not depend on either Olgaard or Acharya being prior art. See Pet. 2, 8–80.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner

    “claimed inventions were conceived no later than October 22, 2000, and Unified has not shown to the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence. First, we find credible Mr. Chang’s testimony that Exhibit 2013 and other related drafts, including their filenames and metadata, have not been altered. Ex. 2031 ¶ 1. We regard the metadata as the most reliable indicator of the latest date each draft was completed. Although the filename dates may differ from the metadata dates, these minor differences do not call into question the reliability of the metadata as the last date on which the drafts were modified. Most significantly, the “last modified” date for Exhibit 2013 is October 22, 2000. That the inventors produced at least three other drafts and then filed a provisional application just ten days later on November 1, 2000 further supports a conception date before October 24, 2000. Ex. 2031 ¶ 6; Ex. 2016; Ex. 2040.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,836,257 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,836,257
• Berkeley Lights, Inc. v. The University Of British ColumbiaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 19, 2023 · IPR2021-01249 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 19, 24, 26, 27, and 30 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not establish selective recovery or a sufficient motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on Dr. Meinhart’s testimony, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, biomedical engineering, molecular biology, (bio)chemistry, or an equivalent degree relevant to microfluidic biological cell analysis, and three to five years of experience with the construction of and application of microfluidic devices to cell culture and analysis.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 40). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 3–4 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 19–20). We find Petitioner’s uncontested articulation to be reasonable in light of the subject matter involved in the ’408 patent and its description of the relevant prior-art background. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:15–2:54 (describing the field and related art as relating to the construction and use of microfluidic devices in cell culture and analysis). Thus, we adopt it for our decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner contends that “no terms require express construction for purposes of resolving the challenges in this proceeding.” Pet. 9; accord Pet. 12. Petitioner also notes that in the parallel district court proceedings, Patent Owner has proposed constructions for the terms chamber and retaining position that differ from Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1013 App’x A, 1, 3 (Patent Owner’s proposed constructions); Ex. 1021, 7, 8 (Petitioner’s proposed constructions); Ex. 1002 ¶ 44). In those proceedings, Patent Owner’s proposed construction for chamber is “an enclosed space within a microfluidic device,” and its proposed construction for retaining position is “a location in the chamber at which a cell is maintained during cell culture and media exchange.” Ex. 1013, 6, 8. Although Petitioner does not contend that its arguments rely on the choice of construction for these terms, Petitioner adopts Patent Owner’s constructions for this proceeding. Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not contest these proposed constructions, or propose any other explicit constructions. See generally PO Resp. We agree with Petitioner that we do not need to construe the terms chamber and retaining position to decide the issues presented in this proceeding, and to the extent we need to interpret the meaning of any claim language, we address the interpretations below in the context of the prior art. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “selectively recovering a cell based on the response in the monitoring step. Although Dimov discloses non-selective recovery and briefly lists a few general techniques that might be used for either mixing or recovery, Dimov does not specifically indicate which of the techniques would be useful for recovery rather than just mixing, and Dimov does not explicitly disclose that any cell recovery would be selective. Nor has Petitioner shown that Dimov inherently discloses selectively recovering any particular cell that has been cultured and monitored, because, as Dr. Gale persuasively testifies, Dimov’s removal techniques could, as far as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known based on Dimov’s disclosure, be merely for “removing . . . unwanted particles out of the capture chamber/trench.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 64; see also id. ¶ 63 (“Dimov . . . may suggest removing cellular materials (rather than intact cells) after capture . . . .”). In other words, given Dimov’s general focus on performing experiments within the trenches and the lack of any specific disclosure about how or why to remove cells, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Dimov’s potential cell-removal techniques would have necessarily been based on a response of a specific cell being cultured and monitored in limitation 1D. We also agree with Patent Owner that Dimov does not disclose any specifics about how to carry out a selective cell removal based on one of Dimov’s listed techniques, such as laser tweezers. See PO Resp. 8–9. Nor does Petitioner meet its burden of showing that such a technique would have been within the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. “In order to anticipate, a prior art disclosure must also be enabling, such that one of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Novo Nordisk Pharms., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Given the labyrinthine outlet channels leading from Dimov’s chambers to the common waste stream and Dimov’s lack of any disclosure of a way to identify and extract cells in the outlet streams, we credit Dr. Gale’s testimony that there would have been substantial obstacles to recovering any specific cells that had been liberated from a trench in Dimov’s device. See Ex. 2012 ¶ 63. Petitioner has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have overcome those obstacles without undue experimentation.” slip op. at 23

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther

    “18 Patent Owner contends that these arguments are untimely, and we agree at least as to certain of the arguments. See Paper 27, Nos. 6, 9, 10; see Paper 28, Nos. 6, 9, 10 (Petitioner’s responses). The new arguments introduce new theories as to how to combine Park and Kovac, including additional steps or new modifications necessary for a successful combination, which could have been presented in the Petition but were not. Nevertheless, as we discuss below, we find these arguments unpersuasive. Petitioner also contends, for the first time, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have addressed the problem of Park’s downward-forcing circulation patterns19 by starting with flow turned off and then turning on flow “after levitation begins, including after the cell has been pushed up out of a well high enough to be clear of recirculating flow lines created once it is turned on.” Pet. Reply 19–20 (citing Ex. 1039 ¶¶ 175– 177); see also id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1039 ¶ 193).” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 10,087,408 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,087,408
• Google LLC v. Neonode Smartphone LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2021-01041 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Google did not show claims 1–7, 9, 12, 13, and 15–17 unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach or suggest the claimed multi-step activation involving gliding away.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For Google, Dr. Wobbrock testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Human-Computer Interaction, Symbolic Systems, or related engineering disciplines, and at least two years of experience designing and programming graphical user interfaces,” but that “[r]elevant work experience can substitute for formal education and advanced degree studies could substitute for work experience.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 49. Testifying for Neonode, Dr. Rosenberg states that for his declaration, he “will apply the same definition of the level of skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” as Dr. Wobbrock. Ex. 2019 ¶ 27. We find Dr. Wobbrock’s uncontested articulation to be reasonable in light of the subject matter involved in the ’879 patent and the asserted prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:49–61 (stating that the ’879 patent addresses technical problems including “to provide a user-friendly interface . . . on a small handheld computer unit”). Thus, we adopt it for our decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Google does not propose any explicit claim constructions in its Petition. See Pet. 4. Neonode does not propose any explicit constructions either, but in its Response, Neonode raises a number of claim construction arguments regarding the term gliding . . . away as it appears in limitation 1c, to which Google responds in its Reply. See PO Resp. 31–50, 66–69; Pet. Reply 7–12, 19–21; see also PO Sur-reply 1–10, 19–21. We do not need to construe this term explicitly for our decision, and to the extent we need to interpret this or any other terms, we address the terms below in the context of the prior art. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find Google’s argument unpersuasive.10 Tarpenning’s assignment operation for hotkey 82 is in the nature of a drag-and-drop operation, where the user drags the pen from hotkey 82 to the intended menu item to which hotkey 82 will be assigned. But Google identifies the “function [to be] activated”—not as the actual assignment of hotkey 82 to the menu item when the user lifts from the intended menu item—but as the underlying software process that looks to see whether the user has lifted yet from the selected menu item. See Pet. Reply 19–20; Tr. 37:17–39:16. Essentially, Google asserts that the recited function is part of processing the gesture itself, which we do not find persuasive. As counsel for Neonode argued at the hearing, unless the user lifts off from a menu item, no assignment to hotkey 82 has been made and nothing has actually been done. See Tr. 80:4– 13. 10 We also consider this argument untimely, as it appears to contradict Google’s original theory of obviousness in the Petition, which states that the “‘assignment’ function” is “completed when the user reaches the target item to be assigned.” Pet. 79; see also Tr. 80:2–3 (counsel for Neonode arguing, “I submit that’s not only a new point they’re making, it’s unsupported and . . . incorrect.”); 37 CFR § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response[] or decision on institution.”). We also find unpersuasive Google’s original argument in the Petition that the recited “function” is activated when the user reaches the target menu item being assigned to hotkey 82. See Pet. 79. This is essentially a traditional drag-and-drop operation. But we credit Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that when the user lifts from the intended menu item, no function has actually been activated. See Ex. 2019 ¶ 139. Rather, at this point a function has merely been assigned to the hotkey for future activation by touching the hotkey. See id. Thus, we determine that Google has not identified any disclosure in Tarpenning in which any “function is activated by a multi-step operation” as recited in limitation 1c. Absent that teaching or suggestion, Google’s argument (Pet. 80–82) does not adequately articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Tarpenning’s book menu key 84 or library menu key 86 to achieve limitation 1c, and we find Google’s obviousness argument unpersuasive as to claim 1.” slip op. at 36

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “would have understood Robertson’s “flick” gesture to comprise “gliding . . . away” as we interpret that term. Robertson says very little about the “flick” gestures themselves, other than using the word flick. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 39. Robertson teaches that its gestures should be “easily differentiated,” and in addition to “flick” gestures, Robertson also teaches “drag and drop” operations. Id. at 36 (“[Y]ou can drag a document icon and drop it into a printer icon to print the document . . . .”). We credit Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that, for the XButton system to immediately distinguish between dragging and flicking, there must be some distinction between a “flick” and a “drag,” and that the most plausible difference is in terms of their speed, distance, or both. See Ex. 2019 ¶ 90. Although Robertson discloses that its system is capable of recognizing gestures that start on an XButton and extend outside it (see Ex. 1005, 43), a “glide” or that the distinction is arbitrary. Cf. Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc., 749 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Descriptive words . . . are commonly used in patent claims, to ‘avoid[] a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995))) the only gesture for which Robertson specifically indicates this would be necessary is a “circling gesture[] for grouping, moving, and copying graphical objects” (id. at 39). Thus, we disagree with Google that Robertson’s teaching in this regard is relevant to what Robertson means by a “flick” gesture. We also find persuasive Neonode’s dictionary definitions, spanning from 1993 to 2012, which consistently indicate that the word flick describes a movement that is “light,” “sharp” or “quick,” and “jerky” or “sudden,” as opposed to definitions of “glide” referring to a movement that is “smooth,” “continuous,” and possibly “quiet” or “effortless.” Exs. 2049, 2050, 2052, 2057.9 And although the evidence postdates Robertson, we find relevant the supporting evidence that modern Apple and Google developers maintain a meaningful distinction between “flick” and “swipe” gestures. See Ex. 2022, 4; Ex. 2023, 6; Ex. 2025, 21; Ex. 2026, 5; Ex. 2029, 2; Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 80–81. We further credit Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion that in the relevant time frame, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted a “flick” gesture as one in which “the pen would touch the screen, but only moves on the screen for a very short distance and is quickly lifted from the screen in a ‘jerky’ motion.” Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 85–86. 9 The earliest dictionary definitions (Ex. 2052) are from 1993, which is roughly contemporary with Robertson (1991), and are sufficiently close in time to be relevant. Google does not present any evidence suggesting that the meaning of flick had changed between 1991 and 1993. See PO Sur-reply 2. Thus, we agree with Neonode that Google has not shown that Robertson’s “flick” gesture comprises “gliding . . . away,” and thus falls within the scope of claim 1. Finally, we also agree with Neonode that Google has not established that Robertson’s “insert” (caret) gesture comprises “gliding . . . away.” Although Robertson does not provide much information about this gesture, we find Dr. Rosenberg’s interpretation and annotated version of Figure 1 (Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 99–102) more credible than those of Dr. Wobbrock (Ex. 1003 ¶ 108). We credit Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “insert” gesture to be similar to the way a person would draw a caret to indicate an insertion within existing text. See Ex. 2019 ¶ 99. Thus, we agree it would involve two brief, connected movements with a sharp peak, neither of which would be a continuous gliding or swiping motion. Id. ¶¶ 100–102.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,095,879 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,095,879
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 29, 2022 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because Coffee did not disclose the claimed copying, and Coffee combined with Heijden did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Initial and Rehearing Decisions, we noted that Patent Owner did not contest Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art at that stage of the proceeding and we found “Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record.” Initial Dec. 13 (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)); Rehearing Dec. 16 (same). Therefore, we adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Initial Dec. 13; Rehearing Dec. 16. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 7. Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary finding by adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “received message 7102 and the header of the response message 7202 are not the same. PO Resp. 25 (citations omitted); Pet. Reply 14. In the Petition, Petitioner argued that “header information” was the same in each message (received and response). Pet. 32 (citations omitted), 36–37. Petitioner relies on Tables 58 and 63, which show “Header.” Id. at 32–33, 37. Petitioner also relies on paragraphs 102 and 118 of Mr. Andrews’s Declaration. Neither the Petition nor Mr. Andrews’s Declaration, however, provide any sufficient basis to find that even a portion of the header or header information is copied from the received message to the response message. Mr. Andrews states his opinion as though it were fact without providing the underlying factual support for his opinion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102, 118; see 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.”). In cross-examination, Mr. Andrews provided additional information explaining which portion of the headers he believes are the same, but he still does not provide any explanation as to why he believes the information is copied. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 at 111:3–25. The same is true of Petitioner’s Reply, which reiterates Mr. Andrews’s deposition testimony, but still fails to provide any reason as to why Coffee’s charts or Mr. Andrews’ testimony necessarily means that Coffee copies a portion of the header from the received message to the response message. See Continental Can Co. U.S.A., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”). And, despite Petitioner’s identification of a “Header” listed in Tables 58 and 63, Coffee does not expressly describe the header or part of the header as being copied from the received message to the response message. The Petition and Mr. Andrews also state that “if Coffee did not employ such copying, the response message would not automatically include information extracted from the received message.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). But, Coffee does not expressly describe the header as being “extracted from the received message” or describe automatically including the header in a response message to make the leap argued by Petitioner and Mr. Andrews. Accordingly, on the full record before us, we find that Petitioner has not established that Coffee explicitly or inherently discloses copying the header or header information and we do not credit Mr. Andrews’ testimony, discussed above, because he fails to provide the underlying factual basis for the opinions offered.” slip op. at 43

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

    “proceeding and on the full record before us, we do not find that Coffee’s silence is sufficient to support Petitioner’s argument. See Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 787 Fed. Appx. 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“We do not find any error in the Board changing its understanding of the teachings of [a prior art reference] from the institution decision to the final written decision. ‘The Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if convinced that its inclinations were wrong.’” (quoting Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Coffee does not explain the process by which the IOD of the received message is included in the response message; rather, Coffee just states that the response message “contains the IOD of the message being answered.” See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 56:63–67 (see full text quoted above). In particular, although Coffee attributes certain actions to the operator, the lack of attribution to the operator does not necessitate that the only viable possibility remaining is that Coffee copies the IOD from the received message to the response message. Even if it may be said that Coffee probably (or possibly) copies the IOD, that probability is not sufficient to find that Coffee necessarily copies the IOD. See Continental Can, 948 F.2d at 1269 (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”).7 Additionally, on the full record before us, we determine that Mr. Andrews’s testimony, as with his testimony as to copying of the header and selected response, fails to provide any factual or underlying support for his opinions expressed therein. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–102. In particular, the leap occurs in paragraph 102, where Mr. Andrews takes the fact that some information (at least the IOD) from the received formatted message is included with the response message to opine that this means the information is “copied over.” Id. ¶ 102. But, again, Coffee is silent. And because Mr. Andrews did not provide any underlying factual basis for his opinion, we do not credit his testimony as to copying the IOD. 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.”).” slip op. at 48

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

    “generally, including the alleged benefits of such and reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to include field-mapping information in Coffee’s MDT. See id. at 62–70. None of Petitioner’s discussion, however, explains how the combination of Coffee and Heijden remedies the deficiencies that we identified regarding Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee. In particular, Petitioner does not assert or explain how the teachings of Heijden would be applied to Coffee such that Coffee would then copy or fill in the specific information from Coffee’s received message to Coffee’s response message, particularly as pertains to the header, Response, and IOD fields (which Petitioner relied on in the first ground), or any other information field from Coffee. The same is true of Mr. Andrews’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 214–231. Additionally, it appears that Petitioner’s analysis of the combination of Heijden and Coffee maintains the position that Coffee copies information fields. See Pet. 70 (“Given that Coffee’s system already implements field mapping to copy information fields . . . .”). And, Mr. Andrews’s testimony similarly maintains that Coffee copies information fields. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 229 (“Coffee also discloses (at least inherently) field mapping by describing that data is copied from fields in request messages into corresponding fields in response message.”). But, as we explain in detail in the context of Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Coffee copies or fills in information from a received message to a response message. Thus, we do not find and Petitioner does not allege that Ground “1B” fills the gaps identified in Petitioner’s Ground “1A.”10 Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Coffee and Heijden would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–4, 7–9, and 12 unpatentable.” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 6,925,308 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• Polycom, Inc. v. Directpacket Research, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2022 · IPR2019-01233 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–23 were not shown unpatentable over Ress or Ress and Doyle because the cited art did not teach receiving a multimedia data stream that includes media.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Having analyzed the record in view of our reviewing court’s directive, we determine on remand, for the reasons that follow, that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–23 of the ’588 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “protocols for media stream communications (Pet. 24; Ex. 1004, 1:20–24), but the operative issue as to limitation1[a] is whether Ress teaches that a multimedia data stream, including media, is received at the communication controller (call server). We have reviewed the evidence and argument provided by Petitioner during trial, and we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Ress teaches or suggests this limitation. PO Resp. 18–19. The evidence supports Patent Owner’s contention, referencing annotated Figure 3 reproduced below, that “Ress illustrates a ‘packetized media stream’ (in blue) communicated between gateways is not associated with the signaling messages (in red) communicated to the call server” and “[t]he ‘packetized media stream’ notably never reaches the call server 300 of Ress.” Id. at 14, 19.” slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that Petitioner presents new evidence and arguments post-appeal, which is impermissible. In its Opening Brief On Remand, Petitioner refers to multiple portions of Ress which had not been cited in either the Petition or Petitioner’s Reply. See Pet. Rem. Br. 1–6 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:62–65, 4:35–42, 7:49–53, 11:62–65, 12:3–9, 4:36–38, 12:6–12, 13:54–59, 12:25–29, 12:31–33, 18:21–24, 18:51–52, 19:6–12). Petitioner also refers to evidence that was cited in Petition and Reply but was not previously relied upon for any assertions related to any transmission of media to the call server in Ress. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 6:16–19, 10:45–49, 18:11–14, 12:13–17, 12:18–21, Figs. 7, 12–19).” slip op. at 19

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

    “protocols for media stream communications (Pet. 24; Ex. 1004, 1:20–24), but the operative issue as to limitation1[a] is whether Ress teaches that a multimedia data stream, including media, is received at the communication controller (call server). We have reviewed the evidence and argument provided by Petitioner during trial, and we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Ress teaches or suggests this limitation. PO Resp. 18–19. The evidence supports Patent Owner’s contention, referencing annotated Figure 3 reproduced below, that “Ress illustrates a ‘packetized media stream’ (in blue) communicated between gateways is not associated with the signaling messages (in red) communicated to the call server” and “[t]he ‘packetized media stream’ notably never reaches the call server 300 of Ress.” Id. at 14, 19.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,773,588 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,773,588
• Lenovo Holding Company, Inc. / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Interdigital Technology CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01505 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish that Zhang disclosed the claimed response to a non-zero grant construed as a power ratio greater than zero.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Here, we determine that the term “power ratio” in the involved parenthetical in the Specification is a definition, and not merely an illustrative example, of a “grant.” First, the Specification does not identify any other type of grant. Dr. Mahon testifies that the Specification does not provide an example of any other type of grant. Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. Petitioner offers no rebuttal expert testimony and identifies no other type of grant disclosed in the Specification. See Pet. Reply 1–5. We credit Dr. Mahon’s unrebutted testimony that the Specification does not identify any other type of grant. Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. Thus, the parenthetical at issue in this case does not exclude any grant described in the Specification (nor, as set forth in Section II.B.2.ii, any grant set forth by ordinary meaning of the term grant based on the extrinsic evidence of record).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner offers no extrinsic evidence, other than the testimony of Dr. Kakaes, regarding the ordinary meaning of the term “grant,” and Dr. Kakaes cites no extrinsic evidence to support his definition of the term “non-zero grant.” Pet. 12; Pet. Reply 1–5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65. Dr. Kakaes does not separately address the meaning of “grant.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65. We find Dr. Mahon’s testimony and the 3GPP Technical Specification persuasive. As set forth above, the 3GPP Technical Specification describes grants as power ratios—a fact that Petitioner does not dispute. Pet. Reply 1– 5. Further, as set forth above, in light of the Specification’s references to 3GPP standards and the 3GPP recitations in the preambles of claims 1 and 6, 3GPP standards from the time of the ’873 patent are highly relevant evidence to an ordinarily skilled artisan of the ordinary meaning of the terms “grant” and “non-zero grant.” iii. A Non-zero Power Ratio is a Power Ratio Greater than Zero Dr. Mahon testifies that a “non-zero grant” should be construed as “a power ratio greater than zero.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 33. Dr. Mahon explains that a power ratio cannot be negative, so a “non-zero” power grant must be greater than zero. Id. ¶ 38. Petitioner does not dispute Dr. Mahon’s testimony that a power ratio cannot be negative. Pet. Reply 1–5. Petitioner further does not dispute that if a “grant” is construed to be a “power ratio,” a “non-zero grant” should be construed to be a “power ratio greater than zero.” Id. We credit Dr. Mahon’s testimony that a power ratio cannot be negative. Ex. 2001 ¶ 38. Thus, in light of the Specification’s and extrinsic evidence’s teachings that a “grant” is a “power ratio,” we construe “non-zero grant” to be a “power ratio greater than zero.”” slip op. at 19

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

    “2. Claim 1 Claim 1 recites the following limitation: triggering transmission of scheduling information (SI), from the WTRU to a Node-B, in response to the WTRU having a non-zero grant smaller than needed preventing the WTRU from sending a medium access control protocol data unit (PDU) of any of a plurality of scheduled medium access control-d (MAC-d) flows. [“responsive limitation of claim 1”] Ex. 1001, 7:36–8:6 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not argue, let alone prove, that Zhang discloses the transmission of scheduling information “in response to the WTRU having a non-zero grant smaller than needed” when “non-zero grant” is construed as a “power ratio greater than zero.” Pet. 25–29; Pet. Reply 1–5, 12–13. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claim 1 is anticipated by Zhang. 3. Claim 5 Claim 5 depends on claim 1. Ex. 1001, 8:15–16. Petitioner relies on its showing for claim 1 for the limitations that claim 5 incorporates from claim 1. Pet. 29–30. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claim 5 is anticipated by Zhang.” slip op. at 25

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

    “B. Ground 2: Asserted Obviousness over Zhang Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang. Pet. 5. For the responsive limitations of claims 1 and 6, Petitioner relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 32–33. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1 and 6 would have been obvious over Zhang. For claims 5 and 10, Petitioner also relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 33. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 5 and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang. C. Ground 3: Asserted Obviousness over Zhang and TS 25.321 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang and TS 25.321. Pet. 5. For this ground, Petitioner argues “[t]o the extent one might argue that Zhang does not . . . sufficiently disclose a WTRU configured to process ‘a plurality of scheduled medium access control-d (MAC-d) flows,’ it would have been obvious to include that functionality in the WTRU of Zhang in view TS 25.321.” Id. at 34 (emphasis omitted). For the responsive limitations of claims 1 and 6, Petitioner relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 34–40, 48. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang and TS 25.321. D. Ground 4: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 over Zhang and Lohr Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang and Lohr. Pet. 5. For this ground, Petitioner argues “[t]o the extent one might argue that Zhang alone, or Zhang in combination with TS 25.321 do not does not sufficiently disclose a WTRU configured to process “a plurality of scheduled medium access control-d (MAC-d) flows,’ it would have also been obvious to include that functionality in the WTRU of Zhang in view” of Lohr. Id. at 52–53 (emphasis omitted). For the responsive limitations of claims 1 and 6, Petitioner relies on its showing for Ground 1. Id. at 52–55. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang and Lohr. E. Ground 5: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1–10 over Zhang, Lohr, and TS 25.321 Petitioner asserts that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang, Lohr, and TS 25.321. Pet. 5. For this ground, Petitioner argues that claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 would have been obvious over Zhang and Lohr for the reasons set forth for Grounds 1–4. Id. at 56. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that claims 1–10 would have been obvious over Zhang, Lohr, and TS 25.321. See Sections III.A–D above.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,797,873 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,797,873
• Google LLC / Ecobee, Inc. v. Ecofactor, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 3, 2022 · IPR2021-00792 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable over Wedekind and Ehlers because the petition did not show the claimed distinct inputs used to determine the start time.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner’s formulation, except for the qualifier “at least,” is correct.6 On the one hand, Patent Owner’s formulation is attorney argument without any supporting evidence. See PO Resp. 5–6. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to no probative value. See Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Attorney’s argument is no substitute for evidence.”); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). On the other hand, Petitioner’s proposal is supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony. See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27). Because Mr. Shah’s testimony is based on his years of experience, we give it some weight. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–10.” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “has more relevant experience. Pet. Reply 4–5; Pet. Supp. Br. 4–5. Petitioner further moves15 to exclude Dr. Palmer’s testimony. Pet. Supp. Br. 5. As our analysis does not rely on Dr. Palmer’s testimony, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion as moot. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence the unpatentability of claims 1–20 of the ’753 patent. Specifically, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Wedekind and Ehlers. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of the ’753 patent are unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to exclude the” slip op. at 30

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Reply: that the first internal temperature is acquired using the setpoint. See Pet. Reply 20. The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide states that a “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)10 73. Although “a reply . . . may . . . respond to arguments raised in the preceding brief,” “[r]espond . . . does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” Id. at 74. As discussed below, we find Petitioner improperly shifted its position in the Reply by advocating a new approach. In the Petition, Petitioner argues that Wedekind teaches “acquiring at least a first internal temperature inside said structure at a third time prior to said target time” by the “continuous measurement of various air temperatures” including the internal temperature inside the structure. Pet. 42 (quoting Ex. 1006, code (57) and citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 97). According to Petitioner, “[t]he continuous measurement of temperatures includes measurement of a first a [sic] internal temperature inside said structure at or before time t3 in Fig. 2, which is the third time prior to said target time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 98). Petitioner argues that “[e]ven during times of steady-state temperature, the temperature is being continuously measured to check against the current temperature setpoint.” Id. Nowhere does Petitioner mention acquiring a temperature by using the setpoint 10 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. temperature as opposed to a measured temperature. See Pet.; PO Sur-reply 9. In its Reply, Petitioner alternatively argues that the claim limitation is satisfied even if Wedekind uses the setback/setpoint11 temperature: Even Wedekind’s parameter Ti, however, would still meet the claim language. EcoFactor principally argues that Ti is not a measured temperature, but rather just a setpoint. A setpoint, according to EcoFactor, is at best a “predict[ion] [of] air temperature at or before time t3”. To this there are three responses. First, EcoFactor simply assumes that the “setback temperature” is a setpoint, but Wedekind refers to it in the relevant passage as “the setback temperature which exists at time, t3”. (Ex. 1006, 19:61)(Emphasis added). The phrase “setback temperature setpoint”, as used by EcoFactor, does not actually occur in Wedekind. Second, even if the setback temperature were a setpoint, the setpoint is a good estimate for the temperature (Ex. 1014, 19:23-21:3), and the claims do not require a measured “first internal temperature”, merely one that is “acquired”. Finally, even if the setback temperature of Wedekind were a predicted temperature, the ’753 patent works in exactly the same way, namely by using a “predicted initial temperature PT” as the temperature at the beginning of the recovery period. (Ex. 1001, 6:17-22)(Ex. 1014, 55:25-58:4). Thus, even if EcoFactor had made an express claim construction argument, the “first internal temperature” would not have been construed to exclude predicted temperatures.” slip op. at 22

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown, based on the theory set forth in the Petition, that Wedekind teaches the disputed limitation.13 b) Conclusion Because Petitioner has not shown that one of the limitations was taught by the prior art, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show by preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. 4. Analysis of Claims 2–8 Petitioner contends that the combination of Wedekind and Ehlers would have rendered the subject matter of claims 2–8 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 61–65. Claims 2–8 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, recites the “determining a first time prior to said target time . . .” limitation. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, Petitioner’s analysis of these claims suffers from the same deficiency and Petitioner has failed to show by preponderance of the 13 Petitioner also states that Ehlers teaches the limitation. Pet. 54. The entirety of Petitioner’s statement follows: “Ehlers also teaches this limitation. (Ex. 1008, 29:23-36, 39:44-51, 19:39-40, 37:25-27. 11:53-63, 32:66-33:13, 36:27-38).” Id. Because Petitioner simply states Ehlers teaches the limitation and supplies a string citation without any explanation or supporting testimony, we do not consider Petitioner’s statement regarding Ehlers adequately explained or supported. See DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[A] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”). Despite being warned in the Institution Decision that we would not consider such conclusory arguments (Inst. Dec. 16–17 n.10), Petitioner did not argue in its Reply that we should consider it or provide any additional evidence or argument (see Pet. Reply). evidence that claims 2–8 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,498,753 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,498,753
• Google LLC / Ecobee, Inc. v. Ecofactor, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 3, 2022 · IPR2020-01504 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the Wedekind and Ehlers combination did not teach the distinct inputs required to determine the claimed start time.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner’s formulation, except for the qualifier “at least,” is correct.6 On the one hand, Patent Owner’s formulation is attorney argument without any supporting evidence. See PO Resp. 5–6. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to no probative value. See Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Attorney’s argument is no substitute for evidence.”); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). On the other hand, Petitioner’s proposal is supported by Mr. Shah’s testimony. See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27). Because Mr. Shah’s testimony is based on his years of experience, we give it some weight. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 2–10.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “After briefing, we issued an order inviting supplemental briefing of the preambles of the challenged claims. Paper 28. In the Order, we proposed that the preamble of each of the challenged claims was not limiting. Id. at 2–3. In supplemental briefing, both Petitioner and Patent Owner agreed with that construction. Paper 31, 1; Paper 32, 5. Because no express construction is needed for our decision, we do not construe any of the claim limitations. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “has more relevant experience. Pet. Reply 4–5; Pet. Supp. Br. 4–5. Petitioner further moves15 to exclude Dr. Palmer’s testimony. Pet. Supp. Br. 5. As our analysis does not rely on Dr. Palmer’s testimony, we dismiss Petitioner’s motion as moot.” slip op. at 30

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

    “But it is there that our agreement with Petitioner ends. The “determining a first time prior to said target time” limitation recites five distinct inputs upon which the time is based at least in part: “[i] said one or more thermal performance values of said structure, [ii] said performance characteristic of said climate control system, [iii] said first internal temperature, [iv] said first external temperature, and [v] the forecasted temperature.” By setting forth five inputs, claim 1 requires that each of those inputs be a distinct component of the calculation of the “first time prior to said target time.” “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) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (concluding that where a claim provides for two separate elements, a “second portion” and a “return portion,” these two elements “logically cannot be one and the same”). There is nothing in the asserted claims to suggest that one piece of data can be used to satisfy multiple inputs. See CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co., 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). However, Petitioner’s theory does not use each of the five distinct inputs. According to Petitioner, Wedekind bases t3—which Petitioner maps to the first time prior to said target time—on the first internal temperature because the first internal temperature is used to determine the thermal performance values of said structure. Pet. 54 (“Furthermore, in predicting t3, the thermal performance values of said structure (as explained under element [1k]) and characteristic of said climate control system (as explained above under element [1l]) are used in the non-linear efficiency model. (Ex. 1006, 19:50-20:2)(Ex. 1002, ¶120). The thermal performance values of said structure (as explained under element [1d]) are based on the first internal temperature and the first external temperature.”); see also Tr. 21:13–22:17 (Petitioner conceding that it is “using the first internal temperature because it’s used to create -- determine the thermal performance value”). Doing so effectively ignores a claim limitation by double counting the “one or more thermal performance values of said structure.” That is, Petitioner uses the “one or more thermal performance values of said structure” to satisfy both inputs [i] and [iii]. Although, as discussed above, claim 1 allows the indirect use of an input, it still must be used distinctly from the other listed input. Petitioner’s theory does not do that. See Pet. 54; Tr. 21:13–22:17. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown, based on the theory set forth in the Petition, that Wedekind teaches the disputed limitation.13 b) Conclusion Because Petitioner has not shown that one of the limitations was taught by the prior art, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show by preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,498,753 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,498,753
• Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01302 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 were not determined unpatentable because the asserted Larson and Larson–Butler grounds did not teach sampling.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither party contends that the differences in proposals affect the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art from the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’474 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include the specifics from option (b) of Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Because the parties agree that the claims remaining in the trial require “sampling” and also agree that the prior art asserted in this case does not teach “sampling” (as discussed further below), we need not construe these terms expressly to resolve the controversy before us. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. sampling Although claim 1 does not recite “sampling” expressly, the post- institution briefs make clear that the parties agree that claim 1 and its dependent claims require sampling. In particular, Patent Owner contends, (1) “the ’474 patent pertains to a technique called sampling, which involves the use of a ‘switch’” (PO Resp. 2); (2) “all of the challenged claims are directed to a sampling system and, in particular, an energy sampling system (also known as an energy transfer system)” (id.); and (3) “[t]he challenged claims only cover energy sampling and the use of switches” (id. at 20). In its Reply, although Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claims as limited to energy sampling (i.e., energy transfer systems) (Pet. Reply 3–7), Petitioner contends that based on its “subsequent analysis of [Patent Owner’s] foundational ’551 patent—one of the multiple patents which the ’474 patent incorporates by reference—[Petitioner] now agrees with [Patent Owner] that the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling.” Pet. Reply 2. Thus, at a minimum, the parties agree that the claims at issue in this proceeding require sampling.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,539,474 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,539,474
• Hulu, LLC / Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2020-00647 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable over Pyle and Marusi or Lewis and Marusi because each ground failed to establish a required claim limitation.

  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. 7–9 (setting forth and adopting Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term 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 ’720 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 15 (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 ’720 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 ’720 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[d], 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[c] and discussed above. See PO Resp. 3–4; 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 14

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

    “Fundamentally, Petitioner fails to provide any reason in the Petition as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to retrieve a list of assets based on Lewis. Instead of providing a reason as to why retrieving a list of assets would have been obvious, Petitioner points to a result achieved by Lewis—generating a dynamic manifest file that contains a list of URLs to container files containing content. In the context before us, pointing to a result to allege that a step in a process leading to the result would have been obvious is insufficient without also providing a reason with rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). Here, Petitioner relies upon the result of Lewis’s process—generating a dynamic manifest file containing a list of URLs—as the only basis as to why a previous step in the claim would have been obvious without providing any reason why the achieved result means the previous step would have been obvious. Further, although Petitioner cites to Dr. Reader’s declaration (Ex. 1003 ¶ 233), Dr. Reader’s testimony does not provide any further explanation or reason as to why this aspect of limitation 1[c] would have been obvious.11 Rather, the Petition’s 11 To the extent Petitioner relies upon its discussion of the combined teachings of Lewis and Marusi as set forth at the beginning of Petitioner’s discussion of this ground (see Pet. 54–57), that portion of the Petition does not provide an additional reason why retrieving a list of assets as recited in discussion appears to be exactly the same as Dr. Reader’s testimony on this point. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to retrieve a list of assets in light of Lewis is not supported sufficiently on the record before us.” slip op. at 46

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)New argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In its Reply, Petitioner contends that “[c]ontrary to [Patent Owner’s] claim that Lewis does not teach a list and that there was no reason to modify Lewis’ system ([PO Resp.] 30–32), the Petition and Dr. Reader clearly explain why lists and database operations would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. Reply 19 (citing Pet. 62–63; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 237–239). Petitioner reiterates the position asserted in the Petition—that it would have been obvious to retrieve a list of assets because Lewis teaches that a dynamic manifest file contains a list of URLs to container files containing content. Id. Petitioner also contends that “Lewis itself explains that it was well-known that manifest files contain a list of media assets to be played.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 20 (noting that “Manifest Resp. 37–38 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 79). In its Reply, Petitioner responds to Patent Owner’s assertion by pointing to stored video segments 375 as assets, not just processed video segments 315a–c. Pet. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 230–231). In the Petition, Petitioner did not assert or rely upon stored video segments 375 as teaching the recited “assets” or “list of assets”; rather, Petitioner relied upon processed video segments 315a–c. See Pet. 62. Petitioner’s attempt to assert, for the first time, in its Reply that processed video segments 375 also teach the recited “assets” is an improper reply argument. See, e.g., Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 74, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (“Generally, a reply . . . may only respond to arguments raised in the preceding brief. . . . ‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing. . . . Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability . . . of an original . . . claim . . . .”); see PO Sur-reply 16–18 (discussing Petitioner’s new argument). Petitioner’s attempt to (1) rely upon stored video segments 375 to teach the recited assets and (2) assert that Lewis teaches, as opposed to rendering obvious, retrieving a list of assets are both new arguments that are inappropriately raised for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply and, therefore, we disregard them. file 257 includes entries 258a through 258f”), Fig. 2 (noting that Figure 2 shows entries pointing to video segments)).” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 9,270,720 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,270,720

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.