• Western Digital Corporation / Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Martin KusterSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2022 · IPR2020-01391 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11, 12, and 14–19 are unpatentable: claims 11 and 12 are anticipated by Hsiao, and claims 11 and 14–19 are obvious over He and Cheng or He, Cheng, and Hiller.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill does not differ materially from that presented by Mr. Welch. Both require a bachelor’s degree in many of the same fields and roughly one to two years of experience with USB protocols or USB product development. The arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner do not indicate that the outcome of this case would change depending on the level of ordinary skill in the art. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s description, which we determine to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Proof of conception must be by “corroborating evidence which shows that the inventor disclosed to others his ‘completed thought expressed in such clear terms as to enable those skilled in the art’ to make the invention.” Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing Field v. Knowles, 183 F.2d 593, 601 (CCPA 1950)); see also Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (corroboration requirement “arose out of a concern that inventors testifying in patent infringement cases would be tempted to remember facts favorable to their case by the lure of protecting their patent or defeating another’s patent”). Similarly, an inventor’s testimony alone is insufficient to establish an earlier reduction to practice. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1169–71 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Instead, a party seeking to prove an actual reduction to practice must proffer evidence corroborating that testimony. Id. at 1170. The sufficiency of corroboration is determined according to a “rule of reason.” Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This, however, does not dispense with the requirement that some independent evidence provide corroboration. Coleman, 754 F.2d at 360. The requirement of “independent” corroboration requires evidence other than the inventor’s testimony. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291–92 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 3. Discussion We find that Patent Owner has not met its burden of establishing that Mr. Kuster conceived and reduced to practice his invention prior to the filing dates of Hsiao or He. By itself, Mr. Kuster’s testimony is insufficient to establish that he reduced his invention to practice prior to the November 23, 2010, filing date or Hsiao or the June 2, 2010, filing date of He. “Throughout the history of the determination of patent rights, oral testimony by an alleged inventor asserting priority over a patentee’s rights is regarded with skepticism, and as a result, such inventor testimony must be supported by some type of corroborating evidence.” Woodland Tr. v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc., 148 F.3d 1368, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Price, 988 F.2d at 1194). Patent Owner has failed to provide sufficient independent evidence corroborating Mr. Kuster’s testimony.” slip op. at 20

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

    “We do not agree with this argument. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Moreover, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” so the fact that it would take some creativity to carry out the combination does not defeat a finding of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421; see also ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The rationale of KSR does not support [the] theory that a person of ordinary skill can only perform combinations of a puzzle element A with a perfectly fitting puzzle element B.”). We find there is support for making this combination of He and Cheng in the testimony of Dr. Baker that addition of a controller is “conventional” in USB flash drives. Baker Decl. ¶ 167. We find that for the reasons given by Dr. Baker, a person of ordinary skill would have added a controller to He. We determine that the combination of He and Cheng teaches each limitation of claim 11. We address Patent Owner’s argument that there are objective indicia of obviousness, infra. We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated that claim 11 would have been obvious over He and Cheng.” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersDecided for patent owner

    “attorney argument, not evidence.” Pet. Reply 26. We agree. Patent Owner does not back up its argument with testimony or other credible evidence. To demonstrate long-felt need, a patentee must point to an “articulated identified problem and evidence of efforts to solve that problem” which were, before the invention, unsuccessful. Tex. Instruments v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1993). All Patent Owner proves, if anything, is that after the USB 3.0 specification issued, a number of companies rushed in to provide contacts that met the new standard. Patent Owner does not demonstrate that they failed where Mr. Kuster succeeded. In fact, there is no evidence that Mr. Kuster ever commercialized his invention.8 8 Victorinox never paid for the work Mr. Kuster did on the USB 3.0 memory device, and to Mr. Kuster’s knowledge, never marketed the product. Kuster Dep. 22:21–24:13. Patent Owner contends “Mr. Kuster’s invention filled the existing need for a durable yet slim USB flash drive compatible with USB 3.0 that was easy to manufacture.” PO Resp. 77. But instead of presenting independent evidence of failure of the others to solve known technical or manufacturing problems, Patent Owner relies on generalized statements concerning the need for USB 3.0 connectors and solutions by others that Patent Owner contends have not been successful. PO Resp. 74–77. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Kuster’s alleged invention filled a long-felt need where others failed.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,693,206 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,693,206
• Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd. v. The Noco CompanySome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2021 · IPR2020-00944 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 and 12–23 are unpatentable over the listed grounds; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed connection sequence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Q. So Richardson contemplates a flow of control where the shunt calibration flag was not set, correct? A. That is reasonable. He shows an option -- an option of a “no” result from Step 406. Ex. 1047, 110:14–18. Dr. Wood also agrees that when the shunt calibration flag is not set and the procedure advances to Step 420, the contact relay in Richardson is still open: Q. Now, if the shunt calibration flag is not set and we go to Step 420, the starter contact relay in Richardson is still open, correct? A. That is my understanding. Id. at 77:10–13. Dr. Wood further agrees that when the shunt calibration flag is not set and the procedure advances to Step 214, where reverse polarity connection is tested, the starter contact relay is still open: Q. Okay. Then if we continue to Step 214 in this example, where the shunt calibration flag was not set, when we’re testing for the condition reverse jumper cable voltage, the starter contact relay is still open, right? A. That appears to be the case.” slip op. at 65

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

    “Referring to FIG. 3, Klang states: “[t[he reverse polarity sensor 48, connected in a like manner across the battery terminals 20, 22, senses negative voltage indicating that the battery leads are connected backwards.” Ex. 1007, 6:20–23. Klang’s reverse polarity sensor provides an output signal (sensed negative voltage) indicating whether the battery has a proper polarity connection. Klang states: “[i]f the start button has not been pressed, at step 144, the OCV [battery open circuit voltage] is compared to a low negative voltage to determine whether the conducting cables 18 are properly connected to the battery 16. If the OCV is less than -0.5V, the method proceeds at step 146 to notify the operator that the leads are reversed.” Ex. 1007, 8:55– 60.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “references. Accordingly, consideration and discussion of the objective evidence of nonobviousness is unnecessary.” slip op. at 92

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “discussed below, the Motion is denied.” slip op. at 94

  Patent outcomesUS 9,007,015 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,007,015
• Fedex Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 9, 2018 · IPR2017-00859 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7, 8, 12, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over the ANSI Standard and Ett; claims 16, 18, and 19 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree that the differences are not determinative. We also find that Patent Owner’s evidence of the level of skill in the art, although generally expansive regarding “data interchange” and exchange using electronic documents, casts an overly broad net for the ’586 patent, which describes that the “present invention relates generally to bar code technology” (Ex. 1001, 1:19–20). We agree with Petitioner that bar code technology is the technology that forms the background of the claims and specification. Reply 15–16; Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (referring to “the invention” and “the claim[s]” to determine the level of ordinary skill in the art). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s identification of the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflecting the claims and specification of the ’586 patent. C.” slip op. at 8

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “failed to show that the ANSI Standard (Exhibit 1002) is authentic and not hearsay. PO Mot. Excl. 1, 3–5. Our prior case, cited by Patent Owner, acknowledges that panels have more often relied on copyright notices as probative evidence of publication. See Ford Motor Co. v. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc., Case IPR2016-01016, at 6 (PTAB Sept. 27, 2016) (Paper 11) (citing cases); see also Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-00527, Paper 41, at 10–11 (PTAB May 18, 2015). We find the copyright notice on a commercial standards document, such as the ANSI Standard copyright marking that is not directly challenged by the Patent Owner, is generally reliable indicia used by the interested public, absent counterfactual evidence. FRE 803(17); see Ex. 2004, 95:23–96:20; Ex. 1008 ¶ 19; Ex. 1002, vvi. We note that Patent Owner acknowledges that persons of ordinary skill in the art turn to ANSI publications as a recognized source. PO Resp. 15. We agree with Petitioner that the copyright notice of the ANSI Standard is admissible under the residual hearsay exception. FRE 807. ANSI has “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” due to the voluminous evidence referencing it (e.g., Exs. 1011, 1032– 1034, 1037), the formalized processes culminating in its publication (Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 9, 11–17; 1023 ¶¶ 6, 8–14; Exs. 1009, 1010), and its status as a standards document. There can be no question that industries rely on ANSI standards. E.g., Ex. 1008 ¶ 19; Ex. 1023 ¶ 20; Ex. 2004 at 95:21–96:11, 190:16–194:7. (Paper 34) Pet. Opp. Excl. 2 (footnote omitted). Patent Owner also does not challenge the ANSI Publication Manuals (Exhibits 1009, 1010), which further support the evidence that the ANSI Standard was published as a standards document.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the ’586 patent specification and the decoding means of claim 16, and related dependent claims 18 and 19, we determine that the structure includes the algorithm that performs the decoding function. See Ex. 1001, 5:40–48 (describing particular “logic and computer routines” in step 127 of Figure 1). Thus, the corresponding structure is more than a general purpose computer or controller. Pet. 10–11; see Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Party Ltd. vs. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Petitioner does not address the algorithm identified as corresponding structure for the “means for decoding” of independent claim 16 as construed above, and in particular, Petitioner fails to show that the asserted prior art teaches or discloses the algorithm in claim 16 and its dependent claims 18 and 19. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown the unpatentability of claims 16, 18, and 19.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We are not persuaded that Petitioner has sufficiently shown by a preponderance of the evidence that UPS qualifies as a prior art printed publication. The last page of UPS includes the following: “01880273 REV. 1/96 50M.” Ex. 1004, 47. Although “1/96” appears to be the date January 1996, the annotation itself does not indicate that the document was disseminated on that date. Additionally, the deposition testimony from Bartex that Petitioner relies on (Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1012, 58–60)) pertains to “Exhibit 4” (Ex. 1012, 58–60), which has not been submitted in this proceeding. In sum, we have no way to determine if UPS is the same as “Exhibit 4,” and Petitioner fails to establish as much. Thus, we do not find Mr. Lewis’ testimony regarding “Exhibit 4” persuasive, nor do we find that the record contains sufficient evidence to support the finding that UPS was publicly disseminated. Thus, Petitioner has not established that UPS qualifies as a prior art printed publication. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to show that the two grounds including UPS render the challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,047,586 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,047,586
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Digital Services, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2018 · IPR2017-00948 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 18–22, and 25 are unpatentable; claims 9–17, 23, and 24 are not unpatentable; substitute claims 26–28 are denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The “verify” limitation of claim 1 expressly recites a check based “at least in part on a device identity.” The specification describes such a check as occurring at steps 15 and 16, not step 13. Steps 15 and 16 check whether the device identity is on record and, in response to that check, allow a digital product to be used on a device (steps 17, 18) or start a process to authorize the device. Id. at 5:1–9, 5:13–18. Although steps 15 and 16 are not expressly described as a verification of validity, steps 15 and 16, not step 13, logically track and most closely align with the language of claim 1’s “verify” and “in response to” limitations. Thus, the specification supports Petitioner’s view that the “verify” limitation can encompass checking whether unique device information is reflected in a database as authorized for a license.” slip op. at 12

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

    “claim 1 is limiting, with Patent Owner arguing that it is and Petitioner arguing that it is not. Id. at 12–13. Patent Owner now argues that “[t]he preambles [of claims 1 and 22] expressly state that the claimed system and method are both directed to ‘adjusting’ the license in terms of its allowed copy count, which the preambles expressly define.” PO Resp. 9. We explained in the Institution Decision, however, that even if the preamble is limiting (e.g., by virtue of it providing antecedent basis (“at least one allowed copy count”) for “set the allowed copy count”), the language “[a] system for adjusting a license for a digital product over time” constitutes a 2 The preamble of claim 25 is not similar to that of claims 1 and 22, and Patent Owner does not propose an “adjusting” limitation for the language “in response to the device identity not being on the record, set the allowed copy count to a first upper limit for a first time period after an initial authorization of the digital product,” as recited in claim 25. statement of intended purpose and does not purport to modify any particular claim language, such as “set the allowed copy count.” Dec. 13–14. Patent Owner argues that our preliminary construction would vitiate the purpose of the preamble language and that, instead, “the claim limitations must be understood in light of the ‘adjusting’ context introduced in the preamble.” PO Resp. 9. However, “the mere fact that a structural term in the preamble is part of the claim does not mean that the preamble’s statement of purpose or other description is also part of the claim.” Marrin v. Griffin, 599 F.3d 1290, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Rather, the Federal Circuit has held that “a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Thus, an intended purpose set forth in a claim preamble and the context that purpose might provide, without more, are not limiting. Moreover, as Petitioner points out, “the claimed invention could be used to adjust an allowed device limit, at least to a higher limit, thereby satisfying the intended purpose of the invention.” Reply 4.” slip op. at 14

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

    “On the complete record, we find that DeMello’s authentication, which checks a Passport ID and machine ID against stored records to authenticate a device, discloses executable code for the processor to “verify that a license data associated with the digital product is valid based at least in part on a device identity generated by sampling physical parameters of the given device,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 22.” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “The Federal Circuit has cautioned that “references to ‘common sense’—whether to supply a motivation to combine or a missing limitation—cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially when dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art references specified.” Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That is not the case here. As explained above, both the ’960 patent and DeMello describe precise numbers of days as arbitrary and that their respective inventions contemplate other numbers. We find that it would have been reasonable for the skilled artisan to have selected six days, as recited in claim 6, in light of DeMello’s disclosure.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 8,566,960 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Bilski · Berkheimer · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,566,960
• Fedex Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 20, 2018 · IPR2017-00729 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Rappaport, Rappaport and DeLorme, or Rappaport and Wright; claims 18–24 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have held at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent, and two or more years of industry experience in the field of mobile communications, or the academic equivalent thereof.” Pet. 8. Petitioner bases its argument on the testimony and experience of Dr. Lavian. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 44–49). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s statement. See generally PO Resp. For the 3 The complete record does not include evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness or secondary considerations. reasons given by Petitioner (Pet. 8; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 44–49), we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Although Petitioner directs us to a portion of the ’581 Patent that Petitioner contends corresponds to the field management program, i.e., “Ex. 1001, 7:50–8:12” (Pet. 10), Petitioner does not identify teachings in Rappaport corresponding to the algorithm in the ’581 Patent, which includes “[t]he program would prompt the user for input of data related to the problem.” Ex. 1001, 7:54–55. Petitioner’s assertion that no substantial differences exist between “Rappaport’s memory, processor, and SitePlanner® program and the memory, processor, and field data management program” of the ’581 Patent is conclusory. Pet. 51. Although Petitioner includes references back to its contentions for other independent claims that do not require a prompt, Petitioner does not provide any explanation regarding these other teachings and the prompt requirement of claim 18. Id. As discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 7, Rappaport teaches repeating the cycle of making measurements, receiving optimized predictions, and reconfiguring the network. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 19:1–8. However, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that this teaching, or any other teaching in Rappaport, is the same or equivalent to a program that prompts the user to input data. Dr. Lavian’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶ 205) is conclusory and substantially the same as Petitioner’s contentions. Dr. Lavian testifies that the program in Rappaport when executed “is substantially equivalent” to that of the ’581 Patent. Id. Because Dr. Lavian does not disclose sufficiently the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based, including what portions of Rappaport are substantially equivalent to the prompt in the ’581 Patent, we give his testimony (Ex. 1006 ¶ 205) little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 45

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

    “Although Petitioner directs us to a portion of the ’581 Patent that Petitioner contends corresponds to the field management program, i.e., “Ex. 1001, 7:50–8:12” (Pet. 10), Petitioner does not identify teachings in Rappaport corresponding to the algorithm in the ’581 Patent, which includes “[t]he program would prompt the user for input of data related to the problem.” Ex. 1001, 7:54–55. Petitioner’s assertion that no substantial differences exist between “Rappaport’s memory, processor, and SitePlanner® program and the memory, processor, and field data management program” of the ’581 Patent is conclusory. Pet. 51. Although Petitioner includes references back to its contentions for other independent claims that do not require a prompt, Petitioner does not provide any explanation regarding these other teachings and the prompt requirement of claim 18. Id. As discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 7, Rappaport teaches repeating the cycle of making measurements, receiving optimized predictions, and reconfiguring the network. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 19:1–8. However, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that this teaching, or any other teaching in Rappaport, is the same or equivalent to a program that prompts the user to input data. Dr. Lavian’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶ 205) is conclusory and substantially the same as Petitioner’s contentions. Dr. Lavian testifies that the program in Rappaport when executed “is substantially equivalent” to that of the ’581 Patent. Id. Because Dr. Lavian does not disclose sufficiently the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based, including what portions of Rappaport are substantially equivalent to the prompt in the ’581 Patent, we give his testimony (Ex. 1006 ¶ 205) little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). In summary, Petitioner has not provided persuasive contentions identifying in Rappaport teachings for the “means for managing data collected at the field using the at least one handheld device responsive to program,” recited in claim 18. On this record, we are not persuaded Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 18 is unpatentable over Rappaport.” slip op. at 45

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

    “Petitioner has shown that all the limitations of claim 1 are taught in Rappaport’s description with respect to two consecutive figures, i.e., Figures 9 and 10. Rappaport’s Figures 9 and 10 both pertain to a system with a handheld device that transmits field data to a remote server, consistent with Dr. Lavian’s testimony. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 77, 80 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002, (57), 1:12–18, 4:41–5:31, 18:7–18, 18:64–19:8, Figs. 1, 3, 9, 10). Even to the extent that these disclosures are of two separate embodiments, “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Consistent with Dr. Lavian’s testimony (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 80–85), we find that it at least would have been obvious and predictable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the functionality disclosed with respect to Figures 9 and 10 into a single handheld device that transmits measured field data to a remote server so that the technician could optimize on-site and on the fly. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 18:7–18, 18:33–48, 18:64–19:8. Rappaport depicts handheld devices in Figures 1, 3, 9, and 10 and refers to each device as a “handheld computer.” See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 6:27–58, 9:26–36, 14:54–15:3, 16:56–65, 18:7–18, 18:64–19:8, Figs. 1, 3, 9, 10. Dr. Sharony’s testimony that the proposed combination is impractical because “the exemplary Palm IIIc handheld of Rappaport . . . only had one serial port” (Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 53–59) does not take into account the full disclosure of Rappaport including “many other portable handheld computers” that “could be used while staying within the spirit of the present invention” such as cellular phones, other PDAs running PalmOS and pocket or tablet personal computers (PCs) running the Windows OS or “another powerful OS.” See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 6:27–58; see also id. at 19:9–12 (“[T]hose skilled in the art will recognize that the invention can be practiced with considerable variation”).6 Additionally, Dr. Sharony’s testimony that the measurement device and the interface box must be connected “at the same time” (Ex. 2008 ¶ 53) is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not require simultaneous collection and transmission of field data.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,494,581 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,494,581
• F5 Networks, Inc. v. Radware, Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 23, 2018 · IPR2017-00124 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–15, 17, and 19–24 are unpatentable; claims 5 and 18 are not. Substitute claim 29 is allowed, while claims 25–28 are denied for lack of written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “V.CONCLUSION Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 6–15, 17, and 19–24 are unpatentable, but not claims 5 and 18. We grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend to replace claim 13 with substitute claim 29, and deny the motion to replace claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 with substitute claims 25–28. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied. VI. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 4, 6–15, 17, and 19–24 are unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED, based on a preponderance of the evidence,” slip op. at 69

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “were associated with ranges of IP addresses and, thus, “[o]ne of ordinary skill would have understood that modifying the source IP address of an outgoing packet to match an external IP address corresponding to the selected ISP WAN link necessarily entailed selecting an IP address from a range of IP addresses associated with that ISP.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 167–173). Dr. A. Rubin, however, only testified that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that ISPs were typically associated with a range of IP addresses.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 172 (emphasis added). Although this might be sufficient to establish that an ISP in Veerina probably would have been associated with a range of IP addresses, it is not sufficient to show that such an ISP necessarily would have been associated with a range of IP addresses. Additional testimony of Dr. A. Rubin makes clear that he is speculating as to how Veerina’s system could have operated rather than how it necessarily must have operated: one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that modifying the source IP address of an outgoing packet to reflect an external IP address corresponding to the selected WAN Link for an ISP could involve selecting from a range of IP addresses associated with that ISP.” slip op. at 29

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Guerin, defines a person of ordinary skill in the art to have “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science or computer engineer[ing] (or equivalent experience) with several years of experience in design and deployment of Internet networking technology,” and “several years of experience with the operation and management of Internet networking technology and systems as well.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 16. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s definition of a skilled artisan. Dec. 12–13. Neither party challenges that determination, and we maintain it on the complete record.” slip op. at 37

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

    “Patent Owner contends that “weighted function of at least one of,” recited in claims 6, 9, and 21, means a “function in which one or more attributes is given a weight.” PO Resp. 9–10. Patent Owner argues that this is the construction given by a district court to “weighed function of at least one of,” a similar term appearing in a claim of a related patent. Id. at 9 (quoting Ex. 1011, 14–15). Petitioner contends that this term need not be construed, but does not oppose the district court construction or offer an alternative. Reply 2. For purposes of this decision, we adopt the district court construction. B. Anticipation by Veerina Petitioner argues that claims 1, 2, 4–9, 13–15, and 17–21 are” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 9,231,853 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,231,853
• LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 16, 2017 · IPR2015-01983 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, 7–12, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over both asserted combinations; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art With regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner asserts: “A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the [’]671 patent is a person who has, through formal education or extensive practical experience, the equivalent of a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science or Electrical Engineering and 2–3 years of experience in graphical user interfaces.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner does not explicitly take a position on the level of ordinary skill and does not dispute Petitioner’s articulation. Petitioner’s assertion is supported by the testimony of Dr. Rhyne. We accept and adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art. C.” slip op. at 12

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

    “A ‘remote information resource’ contains information of interest to a potentially large number of users and is remotely accessible over a wireless connection. Web and WAP sites are examples of remote information resources. PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:15–19). The above-quoted text first provides a definition, and then identifies examples. Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Rhyne, agrees that the above-quoted text in the specification functionally defines a remote information resource and provides examples. Ex. 2004, 21:15–22:12. In accordance with the definition given in the specification, we construe “remote information resource” as: a remotely wirelessly accessible location or object that contains information of interest to a potentially large number of users.3 3 Patent Owner correctly notes that a remote information resource is a container of information and is not the information itself. PO Resp. 13.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner argues that in the context of claims 1 and 12, which add the language “an end-user is enabled to” just prior to the phrase “select the remote information resource” (claim 1) and the phrase “select a remote information resource” (claim 12), claims 1 and 12 should be construed to be limited to “direct” selection of the remote information resource. PO Resp. 13–15. The argument is unpersuasive. The presence of the phrase “an end- user is enabled to” in claims 1 and 12 does not restrict the selection by the end-user to the direct approach. The end-user still can make its selection indirectly, such as by selecting a default profile, as is described in the specification and discussed above. We construe “select [a/the] remote information resource” broadly, but reasonably, to mean “select a remote information resource either directly or indirectly.” We also clarify that indirect selection, in that context, means a selection made on the basis of information provided by the user that does not itself identify the remote information resource.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Ex. 1001, 1:28–36. Citing to the first two sentences in the above-quoted text, and without explanation, Petitioner proposes a construction for “idle screen” that is differently worded from that stated above. Pet. 12. It is inappropriate to rephrase the first two sentences in the above-quoted definition provided in the specification. The meaning of “idle screen” is provided in the specification by the entirety of the above-quoted text and needs no further construction.4 4. “mobile communication device” and “mobile device” Independent claims 1 and 12 each recite the term “mobile communication device,” and independent claims 15 and 16 each recite the term “mobile device.” Petitioner asserts that both terms should be construed to include a portable electronic device with communications capabilities. Pet. 11. Patent Owner asserts that the term “mobile communication device” should be construed as wireless mobile communication device, and the term “mobile device” should be construed as wireless mobile device. PO Resp. 12–13. Because the prior art in the involved grounds of unpatentability accounts for a wireless communication capability of a portable device, we discern no need to specify any express construction for either “mobile communication device” or “mobile device.” 5. “a source selected by a user” Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “in which the information is from a source selected by the user.” According to Patent Owner, the phrase requires “direct” selection of a source of information. PO Resp. 19. We will address Patent Owner’s position in the context of analysis 4 The last sentence, “Personal computers have no equivalent to an idle screen,” indicates only that the ’671 patent defines “idle screen” to exclude anything on a personal computer, such as a screen saver. It acts as a disclaimer, and does not mean a screen saver on a personal computer is not reasonably pertinent to what the ’671 patent regards as an idle screen. By adopting the definition in the specification, we are not finding that teachings about screen savers on a personal computer may not be relied on to render the claimed invention obvious. of claim 2 below. It is not necessary, however, to provide an express construction of the phrase. Note, however, a “source” is not the same as a “remote information resource.” A “remote information resource” is specially defined in the specification and construed above. B.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,498,671 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,498,671
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2017 · IPR2015-01611 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 91 and 92 are unpatentable over Kniffin; the petitioner did not show claims 26, 31, 38, 42, 43, 48, 60, 63, 64, 73, 74, 85, 138, 139, and 143 unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “second signal, wherein the second signal is at least one of generated by and transmitted from a second control device.” Ex. 1001, 80:9–10; see also id. 83:25–26 (similar language in claim 42), 85:15–18 (claim 48), 99:13–14 (claim 138). Thus, in each of independent claims 26, 42, 48, and 138, the first control device must respond to a signal from the second control device. Petitioner asserts that access control device 64 is the first control device and that clearinghouse 18 or 66 is the second control device. Pet. 13–14. Therefore, Petitioner must establish that Kniffin discloses that access control device 64 responds to a signal from the clearinghouse. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has a made a sufficient showing on this point.” slip op. at 13

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

    “second signal, wherein the second signal is at least one of generated by and transmitted from a second control device.” Ex. 1001, 80:9–10; see also id. 83:25–26 (similar language in claim 42), 85:15–18 (claim 48), 99:13–14 (claim 138). Thus, in each of independent claims 26, 42, 48, and 138, the first control device must respond to a signal from the second control device. Petitioner asserts that access control device 64 is the first control device and that clearinghouse 18 or 66 is the second control device. Pet. 13–14. Therefore, Petitioner must establish that Kniffin discloses that access control device 64 responds to a signal from the clearinghouse. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has a made a sufficient showing on this point.” slip op. at 13

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

    “have modified Kniffin to use the Internet because “conventional wisdom at the time of the effective filing date of the ’130 Patent was that the Internet was not secure and there were also many impediments on the use of the Internet.” PO Resp. 32. In support of this position, Patent Owner cites a 1996 Morgan Stanley “Internet Report” that noted concerns about security and potential limits to Internet access. Id. at 32–34 (citing Ex. 2005, 24).” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “have modified Kniffin to use the Internet because “conventional wisdom at the time of the effective filing date of the ’130 Patent was that the Internet was not secure and there were also many impediments on the use of the Internet.” PO Resp. 32. In support of this position, Patent Owner cites a 1996 Morgan Stanley “Internet Report” that noted concerns about security and potential limits to Internet access. Id. at 32–34 (citing Ex. 2005, 24).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,549,130 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,549,130
• Google, Inc. v. Personal Audio LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2016 · IPR2015-00846 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 9, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Chase and Loeb; claims 5–8, 14–17, 28, and 29 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to Rule 42.100(b)). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification, and absent any special definition, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily interpreted the “processor for . . .” elements of claims 1 and 4 Dec. 7–8. After our Institution Decision, neither party identified any issues relating to our preliminary interpretation of the “processor for . . .,” and we discern no other reason to modify our interpretation. Accordingly, we maintain our interpretation of the “processor for . . .” for the purposes of this Final Written Decision. Our interpretation is consistent with the findings of the District Court in the Apple Litigation, which interpreted the “processor for . . .” elements as recited in claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Because the parties raise issues regarding the scope of terms introduced in claims 5, 6, and 14, we also adopt the District Court’s interpretation of those terms and the reasoning supporting those interpretations. The claim interpretations upon which we rely in resolving disputed issues are summarized in the table below.” slip op. at 8

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily interpreted the “processor for . . .” elements of claims 1 and 4 Dec. 7–8. After our Institution Decision, neither party identified any issues relating to our preliminary interpretation of the “processor for . . .,” and we discern no other reason to modify our interpretation. Accordingly, we maintain our interpretation of the “processor for . . .” for the purposes of this Final Written Decision. Our interpretation is consistent with the findings of the District Court in the Apple Litigation, which interpreted the “processor for . . .” elements as recited in claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Because the parties raise issues regarding the scope of terms introduced in claims 5, 6, and 14, we also adopt the District Court’s interpretation of those terms and the reasoning supporting those interpretations. The claim interpretations upon which we rely in resolving disputed issues are summarized in the table below.” slip op. at 8

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

    “As stated by the Federal Circuit, “a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Petitioner does not seek to combine the devices of Chase and Loeb physically. Rather, Petitioner argues that Loeb describes an example of a conventional interface used for controlling a device that plays music and contends that features of that interface would have been recognized as advantageous for Chase’s affiliate terminal. We are persuaded that a skilled artisan would have sought out examples of admittedly conventional interfaces to improve the functionality of Chase’s affiliate terminal. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”).” slip op. at 23

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

    “We are not persuaded that Chase teaches away from discontinuing a currently playing song to advance to a next segment. According to Chase, “[t]he jock box is a physical representation of a DAC cart located in a studio. It provides 8 pushbuttons each with an LED and a small LCD display. Conceptually the jock box is a CD player with an automated changer.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 219. As explained above, and shown in Chase’s Figure 4, DAC 52 is a component separate from remote control terminal 54. The jock box is a “physical representation of a DAC cart.” Id. We read this to be a typographical error and view the jock box as a physical representation of a DAC card, e.g., DAC card 52. If “cart” is not a typographical error, it could refer to a “cart machine,” id. ¶ 36, which also is a component separate from remote control terminal 54 (Figure 4 shows line 56 communicating with a cart, not shown). In either case, Chase’s description of a jock box does not refer to the behavior of remote control terminal 54, which is described elsewhere as follows: The DJ may also request, through the remote control terminal, that the DAC 52 start play of the next segment queued in the DAC 52, stop play of the current segment, fast forward/rewind through the current segment or to a next/previous segment. The DJ may use up/down arrows on the remote control terminal to scroll through a play list displayed to the DJ and select, out of turn, a segment from the play list. Id. ¶ 186. This description is consistent with a device that can discontinue play of a current segment and skip to the next. Thus, Chase does not teach away from a player with that behavior.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,509,178 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,509,178
• Qualcomm Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-01580 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 6, 8, 17, 18, and 20 are unpatentable; claims 7 and 19 were not shown unpatentable because Cuffaro does not disclose a specified number of votes and the obviousness testimony was insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “After institution, Qualcomm Inc. filed substantially the same petition in IPR2015-01580 (IPR2015-01580, Paper 1), together with a Motion for Joinder of IPR2015-01580 with the instant proceeding (IPR2015-01580, Paper 2). On September 17, 2015, we granted a motion to terminate this proceeding with respect to MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA, Inc., but not as to Patent Owner, leaving only Patent Owner as a party to the proceeding. Paper 22. On November 16, 2015, we granted Qualcomm Inc.’s Motion for Joinder, joining Qualcomm Inc. to the instant proceeding. Paper 23. Qualcomm Inc. (“Petitioner”) is now the sole petitioner.” slip op. at 2

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

    “phrase “means for . . . .” Petitioner construes these terms in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, identifying an algorithm described in the specification corresponding to each “means” limitation. Pet. 7–9 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 8, l. 8–38, col. 8, ll. 49–col. 9, l. 16, col. 19, l. 25–col. 20, l. 67). Petitioner identifies a general purpose computer, processor 704 in Figure 7, as structure for “executing the instructions associated with the corresponding function” recited in each “means limitation,” except for the “means fro [sic] the first participant to communicate . . .” recited in claims 5 and 20. Pet. 7–9 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 7, col. 25, ll. 13–18). For the “means fro [sic] the first participant to communicate” limitation, Petitioner identifies transceiver 216, shown in Figure 2, reproduced supra. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 2, col. 9, ll. 54–59). Patent Owner does not contest these identifications. We agree with Petitioner’s identifications and adopt them as our constructions of the means-plus-function limitations. Specifically, as to those means-plus-function limitations that correspond to processor 704 in Figure 7, Petitioner identifies in its claim chart the algorithm described in the specification for performing each function of these means. Pet. 8–9; See also Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“When dealing with a ‘special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation,’ [the Federal Circuit] require[s] the specification to disclose the algorithm for performing the function.”); Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]hen a computer is referenced as support for a function in a means-plus-function claim, there must be some explanation of how the computer performs the claimed function.”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are not persuaded by this reasoning. As Petitioner observes, the embodiments of the ’624 patent identified by Patent Owner are characterized as “examples,” and a person of ordinary skill “would understand that the example scenarios of the specification are not necessarily limiting on the claims.” Reply 3 (citing Ding Supp. Decl. ¶ 6). In addition, Petitioner notes that claim language in related patents owned by Patent Owner explicitly refers to participants, evidencing Patent Owner’s understanding “how to expressly create participant-specific voting requirements in claims.” Id. at 3. At the oral hearing, Patent Owner suggested that explicit reference to participants in such other claim language “was because it wanted to clarify that each participant got a single vote,” and explained its position that, in the claims at issue in this proceeding, “participant is implicit in the claim language as it is.” Tr. 78:16–25. But the claims are directed to a “communications apparatus,” and recite “votes” in the context of what the “particular communications channel” “receives.” Nothing within the structure of the claims requires resolving the origin of such votes. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the construction it agreed to before the district court in the Qualcomm Litigation. In that litigation, the parties agreed that the term “vote” should be construed as “a binary expression (to use or not to use),” a construction that makes no reference to the origin of the “vote” as from a participant or otherwise. Ex. 1014, 6. We see no compelling reason to excuse the inconsistency by adopting a narrower construction when the Board applies a claim-construction standard (broadest reasonable interpretation) that could only result in the same or a broader construction. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A patent may not, like a ‘nose of wax,’ be twisted one way to avoid anticipation and another to find infringement.” (quoting Sterner Lighting, Inc. v. Allied Elec. Supply, Inc., 431 F.2d 539, 544 (5th Cir. 1970))). Accordingly, we construe “votes to use a particular communications channel” as “expressions of preference for using the particular communications channel.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner responds that “the Gerten device is not capable of and expressly teaches away from performing this functionality.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Melendez Decl. ¶ 33). Patent Owner contends that “Gerten’s disclosure is directed toward eliminating channels for use in an entire piconet as opposed to eliminating channels for use by certain participants within a piconet.” Id. at 16 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that Gerten does not disclose a selection kernel capable of maintaining synchronization between a master and more than one slave in a piconet, with the master and one slave using a default set of channels while the same master and a different slave use a different set of channels. Id. We are not persuaded that the absence of a specific teaching of such a selection kernel supports the conclusion that one of skill in the art would understand Gerten to function in the manner Patent Owner suggests. In this instance, Petitioner refers to two embodiments of Gerten “in which a first participant communicates with a second participant via a normal sequence and with another participant via an adaptive hopping sequence.” Reply 5. First, Figure 3 of Gerten is reproduced below. Figure 3 illustrates “methodology for determining and communicating channels to be avoided to a remote device.” Ex. 1003, col. 2, ll. 4–6. As illustrated in the drawing, a master unit performs a discovery process (block 110) upon connecting with a new slave unit. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 60, 64. If the slave unit is capable of using interference avoidance, the master unit begins the process of determining a modified set of channels for use (block 120). Id. ¶ 45. If a second slave unable to use interference avoidance enters the piconet, standard frequency hopping is used. Supp. Ding Decl. ¶ 9. Under Patent Owner’s characterization of Gerten, entry of the second slave into the network would require the first slave necessarily to revert back to the default hopping sequence. Id. ¶ 10. But this would undermine the stated benefits of Gerten, which explicitly discloses: The above process can be applied to a Bluetooth example and includes identification of a Bluetooth device’s ability to support interference avoidance, the measurements of signal strength on all channels and identification of which channel should not be used without violating the FCC rules, a method of modifying the Bluetooth hop sequence so that it will avoid channels containing strong or fixed interferers while still supporting standard Bluetooth hopping with other non-enabled members of the piconet and a method of relating necessary interference avoidance information to the remote Bluetooth devices. Ex. 1003, col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 9 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,477,624 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,477,624

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.