• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2017 · IPR2016-00303 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 are unpatentable as obvious over Huey and ATM UNI; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “PO Mot. 13–14. A motion to exclude is the wrong vehicle to challenge public availability, which is a substantive issue that goes to the sufficiency of the evidence, not to admissibility at issue here. FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, slip. op., Paper 113 at 4 (PTAB September 3, 2015) (“A motion to exclude is not a vehicle for addressing the weight to be given evidence.”); see also 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“A motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.”). For the reasons above, we do not exclude Exhibit 1028.” slip op. at 9

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

    “35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 898–99 (Fed. Cir. 1986). To qualify as a prior art printed publication, the reference must have been disseminated or otherwise made accessible to persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter to which the document relates prior to the critical date. Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding both hair brush art and toothbrush art to be analogous to a claim to a hair brush) (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. (citations omitted). The scope of the field of endeavor is a factual determination based on the scope of the application's written description and claims. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1326. slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “There are two problems with Petitioner’s assertion. First, Petitioner has not shown a reason to combine Kogge with Huey and the ATM UNI Specification. Second, to the extent this reference is used to show the scope and content of the art at the time of the invention, Kogge makes it clear that parallelism and pipelining are different concepts that are “generally discernably different in their general approach.” Ex. 1033, 1. Petitioner has not explained how Kogge shows that putting packets through the pipeline without waiting for the previous packet to finish would be considered operating in parallel given that this reference distinguishes parallel operation from pipeline operation. Petitioner argued at the oral hearing that Patent Owner was advocating “a particular flavor of parallelism, as opposed to what’s understood by normal parallel pipelining.” Tr. 41:6–14. However, neither Petitioner nor its declarant has explained what “normal parallel pipelining” is or what the basis is for us to define “normal parallel pipelining.” Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Huey to meet the limitation of performing at least two of said steps “in parallel using a pipeline.”” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,377,577 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,377,577
• Sandisk Corp. v. Netlist, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01020 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 17, 22, 24, 26, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly; claims 15, 16, 31, and 32 were not shown unpatentable over Takeda and JEDEC.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s position. First, the claim language does not recite any physical or structural connection, rather, only “electrically coupling.” Pet. Reply 3, 8–9. In addition, the specification of the ’150 patent does not define explicitly the term “selectively electrically coupling.” Therefore, as in IPR2014-00882 and IPR2014-01011, we refer to its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257. A technical dictionary, the IEEE Dictionary,4 defines “electrical coupling” as “[e]lectrical charges in conductors of a disturbed circuit formed by electrical induction.” Ex. 3001. The IEEE Dictionary explains that “[s]ince the ratio of a conductor’s electrostatic charge to the potential difference between conductors (required to maintain that charge) is the general definition of capacitance, electrical coupling is also called capacitive coupling.” Id. The IEEE Dictionary defines” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Based on our review of the ’150 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’150 patent and cited prior art, we conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’150 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or related field, and at least one year of work experience, including familiarity with computer memory systems and related industry standards such as JEDEC standards for DRAM memories and memory modules. We further note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). D. Declarant Testimony” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “To testify as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather must be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding a district court’s ruling to allow an expert to provide testimony at trial because the expert “had sufficient relevant technical expertise” and the expert’s “knowledge, skill, experience, training [and] education . . . [wa]s likely to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence”); Mytee Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite admission that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art). As noted above, Dr. Jagannathan has designed and implemented hardware virtual memory caches, and researched theoretical performance measures of various cache coherency protocols, and has experience in the design of memory systems. We find that, although Dr. Jagannathan may be less experienced than Dr. Sechen in the area of memory module design, he is nonetheless qualified sufficiently to testify about memory systems and memory modules. E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 15, 16, 31, and 32 in view of Takeda” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We have reviewed the parties’ contentions on this issue, and exercise our discretion to determine that Petitioner’s Reply and the Jagannathan Supplemental Declaration will not be excluded. We find that, although they may be “inartfully” drafted, the first Jagannathan declaration and Petition sufficiently outlined Petitioner’s position on the function of the chip select signal, namely, that the chip select signal was not itself the logic signal enabling operation of bit-switches. We further find that Petitioner’s Reply and the Supplemental Jagannathan Declaration did not present an entirely new rationale of unpatentability based on Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly. Cf. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming Board’s exclusion of reply brief and declaration that changed unpatentability theory to “an entirely new rationale”). Moreover, there is no dispute that Patent Owner was aware of Petitioner’s position by no later than the Jagannathan deposition, which preceded Patent Owner’s Response by ten days. Patent Owner could have addressed Petitioner’s chip select signal contention, procedurally or substantively, in its Response, but chose to raise the issue only after Petitioner filed its Reply and Supplemental Jagannathan Declaration. Accordingly, Patent Owner had notice of Petitioner’s position and an opportunity to refute that position in its Response.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,881,150 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,881,150
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 30, 2016 · IPR2015-00377 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–16, 18–24, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious; the challenges to claims 2, 8, 11, 17, 25, and 27 were not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “claims). Pet. 7. In our Decision to Institute, we determined the broadest reasonable construction of anomalous is: “deviation/deviating from a model of typical computer system usage.” Dec. 6. We specifically recognized that the Specification contemplates that “attack data” may be used to build the model used as a baseline for comparison to identify anomalous behavior. Id. Neither party has indicated that our determination in regard to that claim construction was improper, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from our initial determination.” slip op. at 5

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

    “one of these distinct models, the ‘Oracle model,’ is combined with other models.” Pet. Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1008, 11:53–64 (showing that a selected ‘Oracle model’ is used in combination with a k-means algorithm and a Markov transition model); Ex. 1015 (Goodrich Suppl. Decl.) ¶ 19). Petitioner has not explained, however, why models created on different computers would be relevant to Khazan’s static model where the specific execution of two different computers would not affect the model.2 See In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., 536 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (reasoning that even though a certain modification could have been possible, it would not have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art “would not have seen any need” to make the modification). Although we acknowledge Petitioner’s argument that Agrawal teaches using a combined model from different processors and the testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Goodrich to that effect (Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 84)), we are not persuaded that this would be sufficient to motivate the 2 Petitioner’s Declarant, in his supplemental declaration, states “[u]sing multiple computers spreads the computational overhead involved in creating the models across the computers, and allows for more models to be created in a shorter amount of time.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 20. We do not rely on this statement because this theory was not presented in the Petition and although the paragraph containing this language is cited to in Petitioner’s Reply at page 6, it is not explained or specifically relied upon. 24 combination given the differences discussed above. In other words, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that there was a motivation to apply the models produced on different computers as taught by Agrawal to the system of Khazan. Therefore, Petitioner, has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 11, and 27 were obvious over the combination of Khazan and Agrawal.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot shown unpatentableUnpatentableMixed

    “Petitioner also asserts through its Declarant that “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that random selection of models is one of a finite number of identified, predictable selection techniques and it would be obvious to try random selection among models because it has a reasonable expectation of success.” Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 86). Petitioner does not explain how random selection is one of a finite number of predictable selection techniques; for example, Petitioner does not show how many other techniques could be considered. See Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“KSR posits a situation with a finite, and in the context of the art, small or easily traversed, number of options that would convince an ordinarily skilled artisan of obviousness . . . . [T]his clearly is not the easily traversed, small and finite number of alternatives that KSR suggested might support an inference of obviousness.”). Dr. Goodrich has not identified sufficient support for the predictability of the art. For example, Dr. Goodrich has not explained sufficiently why, or identified evidence that shows the invention described in the ’322 Patent falls into a very predictable field, one of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed the requisite skills to make the proposed combinations, or one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have anticipated the combination to function in an ordinary and expected way. See Rothman v. Target Corp., 556 F.3d 1310, 1319–20 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 21 Finally, Petitioner cites Sobel (Ex. 1011)1 as support for it being “obvious to randomly select a subset of a group of computing choices.” Pet. 30. Petitioner characterizes Sobel’s teachings too broadly. Ex. 2030 ¶ 117. Sobel is directed to “providing software updates to a random sample of computers,” not to randomly selecting models. Pet. 30. Thus, we are not persuaded that Sobel is relevant to the inquiry here. For the reasons stated above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8, 17, and 25 were obvious over the combination of Khazan and Agrawal.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition fails to propose properly a level of ordinary skill in the Petition itself and that the level of skill suggested by Petitioner’s Declarant is higher than the level used in the related district court case. PO Resp. 6–8. Nevertheless, Patent Owner does not argue that the combinations of the teachings of the references are beyond the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. The level of skill in the art might be gleaned from the prior art itself. See Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A specific finding on the level of skill in the art is not . . . required where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”). Here, we find that the prior art adequately reflects an appropriate level of skill and that Patent Owner does not demonstrate a need for testimony or other evidence to establish the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Also, we find that, even though Dr. Goodrich suggests a level of skill higher than the level used in the related district court case, Patent Owner does not show sufficiently that any such difference in level of skill is material to the obviousness analysis in this case.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,601,322 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,601,322
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00372 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Bace and Russinovich; claims 9 and 10 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed likelihood of observing a feature.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “We have considered the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, and we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 3–8 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. We determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9 and 10 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Michael T. Goodrich, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 28. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 18–19. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex 1029 ¶¶ 13–14; Ex. 2018, 78:2-23. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations E. Patent Owner filed a Motion for Observations on the cross examination of Dr. Michael T. Goodrich (Paper 47), to which Petitioner filed a Response (Paper 50). We have considered Patent Owner’s observations and Petitioner’s responses, and we have given Dr. Goodrich’s testimony the appropriate weight in making our determination in this case.” slip op. at 30

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

    “determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 9. Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 23–24; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 23–24; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’084 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 9 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. Claim 10 6. Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and recites “wherein determining a likelihood of observing a feature comprises determining a conditional probability of observing a first feature in the records of processes that access the operating system registry given an occurrence of a second feature in the records.” Ex. 1001, col. 23, ll. 8–12. Because claim 10 depends from claim 9, and Petitioner has not shown that claim 9 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich, we determine that Petitioner also has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 10 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. See supra Section II.B.5.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,448,084 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,448,084
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00378 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14 and 16–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Bace and Russinovich; claims 25 and 26 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed feature-likelihood limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “contends that this construction is necessary to clarify that the challenged claims require monitoring registry accesses because Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Michael T. Goodrich, testified during his deposition that the records “may be records that don’t have direct impact on the registry.” Id. at 7–8. Even if Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Goodrich’s deposition testimony is accurate, Petitioner does not argue in the Petition or the Reply that the challenged claims do not require monitoring registry accesses. See Pet. 13–15, 21–32; Pet. Reply 1, 3–8. As such, there does not appear to be a dispute that requires claim construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). Nonetheless, in order to avoid any ambiguity, we provide an express construction of the phrase “records regarding processes that access the operating system registry.” We determine that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction. The written description of the ’084 patent consistently indicates that records of processes are obtained by monitoring accesses to the operating system registry. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 6–18, col. 8, ll. 9–10, col. 8, ll. 22–24, col. 13, ll. 28–31, col. 13, ll. 46–52. In addition, Petitioner acknowledges that the challenged claims require monitoring accesses to the operating system registry. Tr. 12:15–13:3. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, however, omits the claim terms “processes” and “operating system,” which are part of the phrase being construed. Ex. 1001, col. 23, ll. 32–34. Therefore, we modify Patent Owner’s proposed construction to include those terms. Specifically, we construe the phrase “records regarding processes that access the operating system registry” to mean “records regarding processes obtained by monitoring accesses to the operating system registry.”1” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelOther

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 28. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 9–10. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex 1029 ¶¶ 7–8; Ex. 2018, 78:2-23. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case. Patent Owner argues that, even if Petitioner correctly defines the level” slip op. at 9

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

    “90–93, 128, 139 (pp. 68–69); Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 9–10. Therefore, the teachings of Bace, together with the background knowledge and perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have made it obvious to use records obtained by monitoring registry accesses as an information source for an anomaly detection system. See Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362– 63 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 13

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

    “Thus, Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 25. Pet. 41–42; Pet. Reply 23–24; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 41–42; Pet. Reply 23–24; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’084 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,448,084 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,448,084
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00374 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as anticipated by Bace and Denning; claims 7 and 8 were not shown unpatentable because neither reference disclosed determining the likelihood of observing a feature.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’306 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’306 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 24. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 8. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 7–8. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case.” slip op. at 5

  • BurdenMixed

    “determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace discloses determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 7. Pet. 30–32; Pet. Reply 14–15; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 30–32; Pet. Reply 14–15; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’306 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Bace specifies that certain information sources are used for a computer system with a Windows operating system. Namely, Bace discloses that, for a Windows computer system, “security log events are the primary focus of intrusion detection systems,” and “especially those having to do with the creation, deletion, and alteration of system files and other 3 Patent Owner suggests that this portion of Bace only relates to the system call records gathered by UNIX system audit trails. Paper 48 ¶¶ 3–5. Section 3.2.4 of Bace, however, describes the advantages of operating system audit trails generally, not just UNIX system audit trails. Ex. 1007, 70. objects.” Id. at 74–75 (emphases added). Bace then explains that the reference data obtained from the Windows computer system is used to generate the anomaly detection models discussed later in Bace. Ex. 1007, 109 (“Anomaly detectors are populated by running them against the collected reference event data.”); id. at 74–75, 121–122; Ex. 1003 ¶ 112. Thus, for a Windows computer system, Bace expressly links the reference data obtained by monitoring the creation, deletion, and alteration of system files with the disclosed anomaly detection models. Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 15–19; cf. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that the prior art did not link two distinct teachings). Bace further discloses that Denning’s anomaly detection model, which includes the mean and standard deviation model, is the “seminal” anomaly detection model. Ex. 1007, 108, 121–122. As a result, Bace provides a specific reason for selecting Denning’s anomaly detection model from among the other models disclosed in Bace. Ex. 1003 ¶ 111; Ex. 1029 ¶ 19. c. Summary For the reasons discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by Bace.” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Here, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s Reply exceeds the scope of a proper reply because it presents a new theory of unpatentability for claim 7 based on the TIM system in Bace that is not included in the Petition. PO Mot. Str. 2–3. Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that its Reply is proper because the Petition relies on the TIM system in Bace with respect to claim 8, and, thus slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,913,306 mixed
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,913,306
• Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 27, 2016 · IPR2014-00971 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–20 are unpatentable: Averbuj anticipates some claims, and Huang or JEDEC combinations render others obvious; claim 4 is not unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We accord greater weight to Dr. Alpert’s opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art because he has experience in both teaching students and working with engineers in the industry, while Dr. Sechen’s experience is primarily in teaching. Compare Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 7, 21, with Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 3, 5. Moreover, based on our review of the ’501 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’501 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Dr. Alpert’s opinion on the level of ordinary skill. Accordingly, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’501 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or in a related field and at least one year of work experience relating to memory systems, and would be familiar with the design of memory devices, memory modules, and BIST.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We accord greater weight to Dr. Alpert’s opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art because he has experience in both teaching students and working with engineers in the industry, while Dr. Sechen’s experience is primarily in teaching. Compare Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 7, 21, with Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 3, 5. Moreover, based on our review of the ’501 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’501 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Dr. Alpert’s opinion on the level of ordinary skill. Accordingly, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’501 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or in a related field and at least one year of work experience relating to memory systems, and would be familiar with the design of memory devices, memory modules, and BIST.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Id. at 8:22–35. In our Final Decision in IPR2014-00970, we found that the above description of each data handler as “operable independently” and having the “further” feature of being “configured to generate data” (see id. at 5:16–23) supported Petitioner’s contention that the data generation function of the data handlers is an additional feature that is separate from the feature of independent operability. We found that based on the description quoted in column 8, lines 22–35, above, coupled with the discussion of the prior art problem of lack of flexibility in memory module self-test logic to accommodate changes to data width (see id. at 4:41–60, 8:24–29), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “operable independently” to describe the data handlers as being discrete and functioning without being physically or logically connected to each other. In the present case, we find similarly that the above-quoted language from the ’501 patent specification is consistent with the plain meaning of the language in claim 1, i.e., that each of the plurality of data handlers is configured to be operated independently, but only some of the data handlers (i.e., “one or more”) are further configured to generate data used for testing. We agree with Petitioner, therefore, that when interpreted in the context of the ’501 patent in its entirety, the claim term “operated independently” “merely means that each data handler can operate without influence or control by any of the other data handlers.” Reply 3. We find no basis in the ’501 patent specification for applying a different construction to the claim 16 language “operating . . . independently.” Accordingly, we interpret “operated independently”/“operating . . . independently” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning: “the operation of a data handler is not influenced or controlled by another data handler” (Reply 4).” slip op. at 17

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

    “Based on the above description in Averbuj, we agree with Patent Owner that Averbuj describes memory interfaces (the alleged data handlers) that are configured to produce address and control signals, and that Averbuj describes producing address and control signals in certain circumstances, e.g., when Averbuj’s sequencer (the alleged control circuit) specifies writing data in a particular pattern that requires transformation to conform to a particular configuration of a memory module. See PO Resp. 35. We also agree with Petitioner, however, that Averbuj’s memory interfaces are further configured to apply to the memory modules the same address and control signals received from, and produced by, the sequencers for testing (see Reply 12–13), e.g., when the sequencer sends signals that can be applied, without modification or transformation (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 56), directly to a memory module irrespective of its physical configuration. Thus, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Averbuj’s sequencer meets the claim 1 limitation of “a control circuit configured to generate address and control signals” for testing memory chips, and that Averbuj describes “operating a control circuit [(i.e., a sequencer)] to generate address and control signals” used in testing memory chips as recited in claim 16 of the ’501 patent.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,359,501 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,359,501
• Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2015 · IPR2014-00970 · APJ Linda M Gaudette · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 14, 15, 19–25, and 27–34 are unpatentable; the Board found other challenged claims not shown unpatentable on the grounds decided.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The difference in the opinions of the two experts is that Dr. Sechen believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an additional four years of experience, education, or a combination of the two, beyond that proposed by Dr. Alpert. See Ex. 1009 ¶ 7. According to Dr. Alpert, the difference in the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art is not material to any dispute over claim construction or patentability in this inter partes review. Id. We accord greater weight to Dr. Alpert’s opinion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art because he has experience in both teaching students and working with engineers in the industry, while Dr. Sechen’s experience is primarily in teaching. Compare Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 7, 21 with Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 3, 5. Moreover, based on our review of the ’434 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’434 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Dr. Alpert’s opinion on the level of ordinary skill. Accordingly, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’434 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or in a related field and at least one year of work experience relating to memory systems, and would be familiar with the design of memory devices, memory modules, and BIST.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The above disclosure uses the term “operable independently” to describe the data handlers as being discrete and functioning without being physically or logically connected to each other. Based on our review of the ’434 patent, the specification and claim 27 both use the term “operable independently” in the same manner, i.e., to describe a feature of the data handler that is distinct from its data generation feature. We agree with Petitioner, therefore, that when interpreted in the context of the ’434 patent in its entirety, the claim term “operable independently” “merely means that each data handler can operate without influence or control by any of the other data handlers.” Reply 5. The ’434 patent specification uses the term “operable independently” in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, and we find no basis for applying the narrower construction advanced by Patent Owner to any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we interpret “operable independently” as “operable without influence or control by another.” See Cuozzo, 793 F.3d at 1278–79.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Based on the above description in Averbuj, we agree with Patent Owner that Averbuj describes memory interfaces (the alleged data handlers) that are configured to produce address and control signals, and that Averbuj describes producing address and control signals in certain circumstances, e.g., when Averbuj’s sequencer (the alleged control module) specifies writing data in a particular pattern that requires transformation to conform to a particular configuration of a memory module. See PO Resp. 33. We also agree with Petitioner, however, that Averbuj’s memory interfaces are further configured to apply to the memory modules the same address and control signals received from, and produced by, the sequencers for testing (see Reply 15), e.g., when the sequencer sends signals that can be applied, without modification or transformation (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 56), directly to a memory module irrespective of its physical configuration. Thus, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Averbuj’s sequencer meets the limitation of “a control module configured to generate address and control signals for testing the memory devices” as recited in challenged independent claims 1, 20, and 29 of the ’434 patent.” slip op. at 41

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

    “As discussed in Section IV.B.2.e., a petition must include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent” (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2)), and “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response” (37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)). We agree with Patent Owner that the Reply does more than merely respond to or rebut arguments made in Patent Owner’s Response; rather, it sets forth a theory that was not presented clearly in the Petition. Patent Owner’s position is supported by the fact that Dr. Sechen, whose skill level is at least (and appears to exceed) that of the ordinary artisan, apparently was unable to envision how Huang and Averbuj could be combined. Further, Dr. Alpert’s second declaration includes, at a minimum, opinions as to the understanding of the ordinary artisan with respect to the teachings of Huang and Averbuj that were not presented in his first declaration. In our judgment, consideration by the Board of the above-noted arguments in the Reply and evidence presented in Dr. Alpert’s second declaration in support thereof would be improper under 37 CFR § 42.23 and unfair to Patent Owner. We have, however, reviewed and considered the arguments in the Petition and evidence therein, and are in agreement with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not provided adequate explanation or evidence to support its contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Huang and Averbuj. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 7–12, 17, 18, 20–25, 27, 28, and 30–35 would have been unpatentable over Huang and Averbuj.” slip op. at 59

  Patent outcomesUS 8,001,434 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,001,434
• Finjan, Inc. v. Fireeye, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2015 · IPR2014-00492 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, 17, 18, 20, and 22–30 are unpatentable; claims 8, 12–14, 16, and 19 were not shown unpatentable, chiefly because the replayer-configuration limitation was not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “that replaying the transmission of data requires replaying the transmission to a destination device such as a virtual machine. However, we do not agree that this is the broadest reasonable interpretation of these phrases. For example, claim 1 recites “replay transmission of . . . data copied from the communication network to a destination device.” The term “replay” appears logically and grammatically to apply to the term “transmission,” which immediately follows “replay.” Further, the term “transmission” is modified by the following phrase “of the suspicious, flagged network data,” which describes the “transmission” as a transmission of suspicious, flagged network data. Claim 1 further describes the “data” as “copied from the communication network to a destination device.” Thus, we read the phrase “copied from the communication network to a destination device” as applying to “data,” and not requiring that “replay” occurs to a destination device. Similarly, we read the corresponding language in claim 28 as applying the phrase “copied from the network to a destination device” to the “copied network data” and not to “replay transmission.” Additionally, for claim 17, we read the claim language “which was copied from the communication network to a destination device” to apply to “copied network data” and not to “replaying transmission.” Our reading of the claim language is consistent with the disclosure of the ’553 patent. The ’553 patent uses the term “destination device” to describe original destination device 710 that receives the transmission of data from Source Device 705 via Communication Network 720. Ex. 1001, 26:18–43, 29:56–60, Figs. 7, 10. Further, the sections of the ’553 patent cited by the Patent Owner do not support Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of these phrases. Column 29, lines 36 through 42 do not refer to a destination device. Column 29, lines 56 through 60 disclose that virtual machine 815 simulates destination device 710. In other words, the ’553 patent does not teach that virtual machine 815 is “a destination device,” instead it teaches that a virtual machine may simulate or mimic the original destination device. Id. at 29:56–60, Fig. 10. Additionally, we note that to the extent Patent Owner contends the recited replay phrases require replay to a virtual machine, the claim language does not recite a virtual machine.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner has not provided a reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Venezia to (1) flag for replay and (2) include an analysis environment. PO Resp. 24– 26. Nonetheless, Petitioner has explained sufficiently how Venezia teaches both flagging for replay and an analysis environment. Thus, Petitioner does not rely on a modification of Venezia to disclose these features. Additionally, we are persuaded that Petitioner has provided sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Kaeo and Venezia. Pet. 22–23. These rationales include combining Venezia’s replay features with Kaeo’s IDS to minimize false positives in Kaeo’s IDS through further verification of suspicious packets with Venezia’s replay. Id. Accordingly, based on the evidence and arguments presented, we find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, supported by articulated reasoning with rational underpinning, that claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over Kaeo and Venezia.” slip op. at 21

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Additionally, we note that in Petitioner’s Reply, Petitioner states Patent Owner’s arguments are conclusory and “cannot overcome the evidence cited by the Petition nor the Board’s analysis of that evidence.” Reply 14 (citations omitted). For clarity, we reiterate that in an inter partes review, the burden is on the Petitioner to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a claim is unpatentable. Our discussion in the Decision to Institute was based on a preliminary record at that stage of the proceeding and any decision to institute review of a claim under any ground does not create a presumption of unpatentability or absolve the Petitioner of the burden ultimately to satisfy the required showing for unpatentability. Based on the complete record before us, we are not persuaded Petitioner has met its burden for claim 8. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 8 would have been obvious over Kaeo, Venezia, and Chen. Claim 12–14 and 16 depend from claim 8. Ex. 1001, 32:5967, 33:57. For the same reasons, we are not persuaded that claims 12–14 and 16 are unpatentable over Kaeo, Venezia, and Chen.” slip op. at 31

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “declarant, Dr. Jaeger, testifies that Liljenstam already teaches “flagged at least a portion of the analyzed copy of the network data” because Liljenstam’s collects suspicious copied packets in binary tcpdump format for replay using TCPReplay. See Liljenstam at 4 (“Instrumented routers in the Internet send copies of ICMP type 3 messages to the DIB:S system which correlates and analyzes the data…..As shown in Figure 3, all packets arriving to the DIB:S system in the model are dumped to a file in binary tcpdump format.”) (FJN 1007). At the same time, Dunlap’s ReVirt replay logged records saved to disk in syslog format. Dunlap at 7 (“Log records are added and saved to disk in a manner similar to that used by the Linux syslogd daemon.”) (FJN 1008). Notably, one of skill in art at the time understood that data in tcpdump files can be easily converted into syslog format. See Boubalos at 1 (providing an automated utility to “extract syslog packets from tcpdump files”) (FJN 1013). Thus, no technical impediment existed for Dunlap’s ReVirt to replay Liljenstam’s collection of packets in binary tcpdump format. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 475–76 (emphasis omitted). We credit Dr. Jaeger’s testimony and are persuaded Petitioner presents sufficient evidence to support a finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Dunlap’s ReVirt to replay Liljenstam’s packets. Further, we are persuaded that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasons for the combination of Dunlap and Liljenstam. For example, Petitioner asserts Dunlap’s replay to a virtual machine enhances Liljenstam’s replay by maintaining the integrity of the compromised system. Pet. 29–30.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 8,171,553 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,171,553
• Finjan, Inc. v. Fireeye, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2015 · IPR2014-00344 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–8, 19, 20, 22–25, and 27–29 are unpatentable under §103; claim 21 was not shown unpatentable because the Chen ground did not establish the replayer limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “determine Petitioner’s arguments are not persuasive. Although Chen discloses forwarding suspicious packets to a clone, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how forwarding packets teaches or suggests “configuring a replayer to transmit . . . data to the virtual machine.” Moreover, Petitioner does not explain how Chen’s logging disclosure (Ex. 1009, 2–3) applies to configuring a replayer. At the oral hearing, Petitioner was asked to explain its reliance on Chen for this limitation.” slip op. at 31

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the following education and/or experience: a recent degree in a field such as computer science or computer networking and two or more years of experience in the computer networking or computer security industry. PO Resp. 17; Ex. 1030 ¶ 33. “Alternatively, in lieu of recent formal education, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had six or more years of relevant experience in the computer networking or computer security industry.” Id. This level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ordinary skill reflected in the prior art of record, which is directed to computer networking and computer security systems. For example, Venezia and Kaeo both disclose intrusion-detection-systems. Ex. 1005; Ex. 1006. With this level of ordinary skill in mind, we now turn to the analysis” slip op. at 14

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

    “1. flag or flagging (Claims 1 and 19) For the purposes of our Decision to Institute, we determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms “flag” and “flagging” is “identify” and “identifying.” Dec. 7. Neither party disputes this interpretation. Pet. 5; PO Resp. 12. Based on the complete record now before us, we discern no reason to change the interpretation; thus, we adopt our previous analysis and interpret “flag” and “flagging” to mean “identify” and “identifying,” respectively.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Next, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not provided a reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Venezia to (1) flag for replay and (2) include an analysis environment. PO Resp. 25– 26. Nonetheless, Petitioner has explained sufficiently how Venezia teaches both flagging for replay and an analysis environment. Thus, Petitioner does not rely on a modification of Venezia to disclose these features. Additionally, we are persuaded that Petitioner has provided sufficient rationale to combine the teachings of Kaeo and Venezia. Pet. 26. These rationales include combining Venezia’s replay features with Kaeo’s IDS to minimize false positives in Kaeo’s IDS through further verification of suspicious packets with Venezia’s replay. Id. Accordingly, based on the evidence and arguments presented, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, supported by articulated reasoning with rational underpinning, that claims 1 and 19 would have been obvious over Kaeo and Venezia.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,291,499 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,291,499

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.