• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Almondnet, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2024 · IPR2022-01259 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 35–51 not unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not show that the claimed computers automatically authorize a distinct third-party second media property to allow ad display.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments, we agree with Petitioner that the recited “system” of claim 35 does not necessarily exclude a “third-party second media property.” As Petitioner points out, claim 35 uses the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising,” such that the recited “system comprising one or more computers” may include components other than the recited “one or more computers.” See Pet. Reply 1 (citing CIAS, Inc. v. All. Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “programmed to implement a method of directing electronic advertisements” more naturally modifies “one or more computers,” rather than “system.” Id. at 3. Nonetheless, it is clear from the plain language of claim 35, as well as from the prosecution history of the related ’745 patent, that the third-party second media property must be distinct from such “one or more computers.” Petitioner’s repeated use of the abbreviation “TPSMP” obscures the fact that claim 35 does not simply recite a “second media property” but instead specifically recites a “third-party second media property.” Ex. 1001, 16:18–19 (emphasis added). Highlighting the significance of the modifier “third-party,” as Patent Owner points out, is the fact that that modifier was added to “second media property” in the phrase “automatically electronically authorizing, with at least one of the computers, a third party second media property to allow display, to the electronic visitor when later visiting the second media property, of an advertisement” in an Examiner’s amendment during prosecution of the ’822 patent’s grandparent ’286 application to avoid certain prior art, and the prosecution record of the ’286 application reflects that this amendment was made to make it clear that the recited “authorizing is being done of an unrelated site.” Ex. 2005, 58; see PO Resp. 10–11. More particularly, as Patent Owner points out, the applicant stated in the cited examiner interview report that “the claim structure already made [it] clear” that “the authorizing is being done of an unrelated site . . . because the phrase ‘authorizing’ a site does not seem to cover a site deciding something on its own,” but that the amendment to specify a “third party second media property” made that requirement “explicit.” Ex. 2005, 58; see PO Resp. 7–8 (quoting the same).” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “We adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, minus the phrases “at least” modifying the education and “or more” modifying the number of years of experience. As we explained in our Institution Decision, although Petitioner’s articulation otherwise appears consistent with the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the asserted prior art, inclusion of such qualifiers render the articulation vague by being open-ended thus encompassing the level of education and experience of an expert, someone with more than ordinary skill in the art. See Dec. 12. Thus, in summary, we find that one with ordinary skill in the art at the pertinent time period would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and two years of experience with designing, programming, configuration, and/or analysis/research with Internet or similar network-related processes including, for example, user/entity profile management and/or web-based targeted content delivery, or a related field, where more education could supplement practical experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Having considered the parties’ respective contentions in light of the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 35 is unpatentable over the combination of Perry, Wilson, and Bronson. In particular, we are not persuaded that the cited prior art teaches or suggests “a system comprising one or more computers programmed to implement a method . . . comprising: . . . automatically electronically authorizing a third-party second media property to allow display . . . of an advertisement correlated with the profile-attribute information received about the visitor.” Although Figure 1 of Perry depicts a “system” that includes computers programmed to implement a method of distributing advertisements to users over the Internet, we are not persuaded that any component in that system implements a method that includes “automatically electronically authorizing a third-party second media property” to display such advertisements. As Patent Owner points out, Petitioner identifies “Internet publisher computer systems 131 and 132” and “advertising service company computer system 140 comprising one or more CPUs 141” as the recited “one or more computers.” Pet. 7; PO Resp. 11. Although there is no dispute that Publisher Systems 131 and 132 and ASC 140 are computers, we find that neither satisfies the remaining limitations of claim 35, particularly because neither “automatically electronically authoriz[es] a third-party second media property” to display advertisements. As we explain in our claim construction discussion above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the recited “system” necessarily must exclude the “third-party second media server.” See supra § III.C. Nonetheless, the third-party second media server still must be separate and distinct from the “one or more computers programmed to implement [the recited] method,” lest the modifier “third-party” be rendered meaningless.” slip op. at 54

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Further, Patent Owner did not present Mr. Sherwood as an expert on patent law or claim drafting, and we decline to give substantial weight to his testimony on this issue that is ultimately a matter of law. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996) (ruling that the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law to be determined exclusively by the courts). Still further, Petitioner’s counsel conceded that the formatting of the claim is not dispositive. Tr. 14:14–18.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,200,822 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,200,822
• Hanwha Solutions Corporation / Hanwha Q Cells USA, Inc. v. Rec Solar Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2022 · IPR2021-00989 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 11, and 13 were not shown unpatentable under either obviousness ground because Petitioner did not establish a motivation to combine Yagiura and Shimasaki.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Petitioner’s position is persuasive. We agree that documents from the Japanese Patent Office are self-authenticating official government documents. The technical issues regarding missing pages in the originally filed version of the document do not cause us to question authenticity. We also agree that Petitioner uses the documents to establish what the documents teach rather than establishing the truth of what the documents teach. In Reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner relies on the date printed on the document to prove up the truth of when the document was published. Mot. Excl. Reply 1–2. To the extent this is the case, an exception to hearsay applies because the document is a record of a public office. Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(B) (a record of public office is an exception to the hearsay rule if the opponent does not show that the source of information or other circumstances “indicate a lack of trustworthiness”). Here, Patent Owner does not persuasively demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness; Patent Owner does not identify any substantively meaningful distinction in the missing pages of the originally filed document and does not identify any evidence to suggest that the missing pages were anything more than a harmless clerical error. For the reasons above, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is denied with respect to these documents. B.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner’s proposal is too broad. PO Resp. 8. For example, a person who merely installs solar panels for three years (satisfying “professional experience in solar energy”) while having some familiarity with module manufacturing would not be of ordinary skill in the design aspects of the ’060 patent as, for example, reflected by the claims at issue and the ’060 patent’s text and figures. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, Figs. 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 3:22–7:44. On the other hand, we also determine that Patent Owner’s proposal is too narrow. A person could, for example, have ordinary skill in the art of the ’060 patent by virtue of non-professional experience (for example, academic experience). When assessing relevant experience, research work done for a university (beyond mere classroom study) would have been just as valuable as research work done for a corporation. Also, ordinary skill in the art could be demonstrated by work that requires understanding of the ’060 patent’s field even if not “designing, developing, and/or researching” in the field itself We, thus, determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’060 patent would have been someone with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or the like, and at least two years of (a) experience designing, developing, and/or researching in the field or (b) experience in solar energy that required an understanding of the ’060 patent’s field. Alternatively, that person would have had an advanced degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or the like and at least one year of” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “qualifies as evidence in this matter. The Federal Circuit has held that expert testimony about the perspective of person of ordinary skill in the art (as Dr. Kimball provides here) must come from a person having at least ordinary skill in the art. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (holding that ITC Administrative Law Judge abused discretion by admitting expert testimony of witness who lacked the experience of a person having ordinary skill in the art); see Mot. Excl. 6–7 (arguing this point). Patent Owner, however, cites no authority that expert testimony on such matters come from a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Cf. Scentair Tech., LLC v. Prolitiec Inc., IPR2021-00012, Paper 22 at 61 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2022) (similarly noting a party’s lack of authority on this point). Beyond needing to come from a person of ordinary skill in the art, expert testimony is admissible if the expert has the “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Furthermore, “[t]here is … no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field.” USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 34 (Nov. 2019). Here, Petitioner adequately establishes that Dr. Kimball qualifies as a” slip op. at 12

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

    “The Petition argues that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 18. Patent Owner does not dispute this. PO Resp. 13. We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only to the” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,749,060 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,749,060
• Mediatek Inc. / Mediatek USA, Inc. v. Nippon Telegraph And Telephone CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2022 · IPR2020-01404 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable; the asserted obviousness combinations failed to teach or motivate the claimed mandatory-channel operation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner alleges a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a B.S. in Electrical Engineering, or the equivalent, and 3–4 years of experience designing wireless packet communication devices, including 802.11-compliant devices. More education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–31). Patent Owner accepted Petitioner’s proposal in its Preliminary Response but does not take a position in its Response. See Paper 8, 4 fn.3. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which is consistent with the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “meaning “one channel in a wireless multichannel communication system over which transmission must occur before transmission over the other wireless channels.” Inst. Dec. 21. Patent Owner argues the construction should be modified by substituting “whose idle state determines whether there can be a transmission” for “over which transmission must occur before transmission.” PO Resp. 1 n.1, 11–12. Patent Owner otherwise agrees with the preliminary construction. Id. at 1–2. We modify our preliminary construction of “mandatory channel” and adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “mandatory channel.” We respond to Petitioner’s arguments against adoption of Patent Owner’s construction below. We therefore determine that “mandatory channel” means “one channel in a wireless multichannel communication system whose idle state determines whether there can be a transmission over the other wireless channels.”” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In considering the “appropriate weight” to give a prior construction we look at “the similarities between the record in the district court or the ITC and the record before the Board”; “whether the prior claim construction is final or interlocutory”; “whether the terms construed by the district court or ITC are necessary to deciding the issues before it”; and “the facts and circumstances of each case.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 47 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/tpgnov.pdf. The briefing of the parties in the District Court suggests the evidence was substantially the same as here. See, e.g., Ex. 1056,8 14–17 (citing Shpak (Ex. 1005 here); Geier Declaration (Ex. 2005 here); Ex. 10589). The District Court’s Claim Construction Order states the construction is “final.” See Ex. 1055, 1 (“final construction”). Trial was set 8 ’632 Lawsuit, Plaintiffs’ Opening Claim Construction Brief, Dkt. 37. 9 ’632 Lawsuit, Transcript of Markman Hearing, February 4, 2021. for January 10, 2022, but the case was reassigned and an Order Resetting Schedule entered January 12, 2022, setting a pretrial for May 19, 2022, and a jury trial for June 13, 2022. ’632 Lawsuit, ECF No. 89; see also Inst. Dec. 42 (ordering the parties to advise us of “the setting of a trial date”). The construction could change as the record is further developed at trial. As to the necessity for construction, the District Court did construe “mandatory channel.” We disagree with Petitioner that the District Court “explicitly rejected [Patent Owner’s] contention that ‘mandatory channel’ limits the claims to multichannel systems.” Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1056, 14–17; Ex. 1057,10 7–9; Ex. 1058, 21:3–30:24); see Section III.C.1.c below. Petitioner argues the District Court construction is inconsistent with our preliminary construction. Id. at 19–20 (citing Inst. Dec. 21 (“Further, the ‘mandatory channel’ may be the only channel used and still be within the scope of the claims.”); Ex. 1055, 4 (“The Court found ‘mandatory channel’ may be the only channel . . . .”)). As shown in the italicized language above from each construction, we are not persuaded there is an inconsistency.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “c. “single wireless channel” In the Institution Decision we preliminarily found the preamble is limiting. Inst. Dec. 19. Neither party argues the preamble is not limiting, and for purposes of this Decision we maintain our finding that the preamble is limiting. 12” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 7,280,551 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,280,551
• Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 7, 2020 · IPR2019-00026 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 15, and 41 were not shown unpatentable: Abadi did not identify suspicious code in its annotations, and the Abadi and Gryaznov combination did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; 2 Abadi et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,253,370 B1, issued June 26, 2001 (filed Dec. 1, 1997) (Ex. 1008, “Abadi”). 3 Dmitry O. Gryaznov, Scanners of the Year 2000: Heuristics, Virus Bull. Conf. 225 (Sept. 1995) (Ex. 1009, 2–11, “Gryaznov”). (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We analyze the asserted grounds with the principles stated above in mind.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments, we see no reason to disturb their agreed construction of “Downloadable” as “an executable application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination computer,” with which the parties state their express agreement. We clarify in Section II.D.2. below that we agree with Patent Owner that the executable application program that is to be run on the destination computer must be the same executable application program that is downloaded from the source computer within the agreed construction. Sur-reply 1–2. This interpretation is not a question of the construction of the term “Downloadable” itself, but rather flows from the express language of the challenged claims, in which “the Downloadable” that is “ma[de] . . . available to web clients” in the final step of each of independent claims 1 and 41 has its antecedent basis in the first claim step, “receiving . . . a Downloadable.” Likewise, the antecedent in claim 15 for “the Downloadable” that is made available to web clients is the Downloadable in which suspicious code is identified by the content inspection engine. We also agree with Patent Owner that the claimed “linking” of a DSP “to the Downloadable” does not compel a different understanding because we are not persuaded that the linking contemplated in the ’844 patent requires modification of the code of the Downloadable itself. Sur-reply 2–3.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Having considered the full record developed during trial, we agree with Patent Owner that the replacement of the word “profile” with “information” does not add any clarity to the meaning of this phrase and that the proper construction of “Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in [the received / a] Downloadable” in the context of the ’844 patent is “profile that must at least include, but is not necessarily limited only to, an identification of hostile, potentially hostile, undesirable, or potentially undesirable code in the corresponding Downloadable.” PO Resp. 7–8. Regardless, we do not discern that the difference between the parties’ positions with respect to these phrases is dispositive of any issues in this proceeding.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “generate an ID for the Downloadable.” PO Resp. 21 (emphasis added) (quoting Ex. 2015, 15), 23 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 2015, 20). Based on Patent Owner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that the ’639 provisional demonstrates possession by the inventors of linking a DSP to the Downloadable “before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients.” Rather, by the time that the DSP has been linked to the Downloadable (e.g., by code scanner 325, in Patent Owner’s mapping), we understand that the Downloadable has already been received—and hence “made available”—by the web server. Notably, this conclusion does not depend on where the “linking” occurs—particularly, whether it may occur at a network gateway, a focus of the parties’ claim construction arguments (see, e.g., Pet. 25–27; PO Resp. 10–12; Section II.B.5, supra)—but instead on when it occurs relative to the Downloadable being made available to clients. Further, having considered the alleged Appendix to the ’639 provisional (Ex. 2015, 37–45), including portions cited by Dr. Butler in related litigation (see Ex. 2047), we are not persuaded that anything in the Appendix demonstrates possession of linking “before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients.” In conclusion, therefore, we are not persuaded that the inventors were in possession of the subject matter of the challenged claims at any time prior to the December 22, 1997, filing date of the ’648 application.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 6,154,844 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,154,844
• Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. v. Semicaps Pte Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 18, 2019 · IPR2017-02112 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 3, and 8–20 were not shown unpatentable because Hamada did not disclose the claimed sampling and accumulation, the obviousness theories were insufficient, and Quah was not proven prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “adequately address the pertinent issue—whether Petitioner’s proposed hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would lack the requisite experience and understanding of the art. Patent Owner does not identify adequately a substantive difference between Petitioner’s hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art and Patent Owner’s. See PO Resp. 17–20. For example, Patent Owner does not argue that an electrical engineer or physicist with two years of experience utilizing electronic circuit testing equipment would lack adequate knowledge of the use of lasers in circuit testing. To the contrary, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Woods, “generally agree[s] with petitioner’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]”—including the type of education and level of experience—and testified that “[t]hese techniques [of OBIRCH and TIVA] were known and widely used around the time of the invention of the ’982 patent to determine the location of defects in a semiconductor device and would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 30–31. To the extent that Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill is more than merely an elaboration upon Petitioner’s, we find it to be directed to a super-expert in a very narrowly defined field and calculated to undermine Dr. Mercer’s credibility while simultaneously promoting the credentials of its own experts. We do not find this litigation-induced argument persuasive. We determine that the definition offered by Dr. Mercer comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’982 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Accordingly, we apply Dr. Mercer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Thus, the parties agree that accumulating encompasses, at least, adding values together. This understanding is consistent with the specification’s discussion of accumulated samples. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:20–29. Petitioner initially asserted, in the Petition, that “accumulating” should be construed to include the act of averaging. Pet. 4–5. In the Institution Decision, we declined to construe “accumulating” as necessarily including the act of averaging. Inst. Dec. 7–8. In its Reply, Petitioner no longer advocates this as a matter of claim construction. See Pet. Reply 6. As discussed below, the parties address the issue as a factual matter, and specifically as to whether a prior art reference’s use of the term “average” discloses “accumulating” within the meaning of the claims of the ’982 patent. We again, as we did in the Institution Decision, Inst. Dec. 8, construe the term “accumulating” merely as encompassing the process of addition.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We do not find Petitioner’s dictionary-based “[b]y definition” argument to be persuasive as it is disconnected from the technology at issue. We cannot find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would apply, in this context, a lay dictionary’s general definition and thereby understand Hamada to disclose determining a plurality of samples. We credit the opinion of Dr. Woods, containing persuasive reasoning, and find that Hamada’s use of the word “average” does not disclose “determining a plurality of samples,” as Petitioner contends. We now turn to Petitioner’s arguments that are more closely related to the technology.” slip op. at 21

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

    “In support of its case, Petitioner reasons that “a POSITA would have considered it obvious to have configured Hamada’s electrical current meter 6 to determine a plurality of samples of the response signal, and to have configured signal processing and display 9 to add up this plurality of samples, in order to optimize Hamada’s averaging process.” Pet. at 23 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 24; Ex. 1014 ¶ 205). Neither Petitioner nor its expert elaborates on the conclusory assertion that performing the claimed determining and accumulating steps would have “optimize[d]” Hamada’s averaging process. Petitioner further reasons that: it would have been obvious for a POSITA at the time of the invention to have configured electrical current meter 6 and signal processing and display unit 9 to respectively measure and add multiple samples of the response signal to allow Hamada’s averaging process, in turn, to be performed on multiple samples. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 206). This reasoning is circular in that it is, effectively, an assertion that it would have been obvious to perform operations on multiple samples in order to perform the process on multiple samples. We also have considered Petitioner’s arguments in the Petition that the “motivation” comes from the “teaching or suggestion” provided by the disclosure of “averaging,” along with Petitioner’s string of reasons from KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). See Pet. 24, 43–44 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 206, 306). Petitioner does not develop adequately any of these reasons. An obviousness analysis requires more than “mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In its Reply, Petitioner repackages its “[b]y definition” argument as purportedly an obviousness argument. Pet. Reply 19–20. Petitioner argues that, “to the extent that Hamada does not explicitly disclose this limitation, a POSITA would have considered the act of configuring Hamada to measure and add multiple samples to have been obvious because that is what the definition of ‘averaging’ requires.” Id. (citing Pet. 23–26; Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 204– 208). Although possibly an obviousness theory, this argument reads more like an assertion that the claimed determining and accumulating of a plurality of samples either is inherently or implicitly disclosed in Hamada (offered as an alternative if it is deemed not explicitly disclosed). Thus, Petitioner appears to take the position that the disputed limitation is not absent from Hamada, and Petitioner fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill would have seen a reason to modify Hamada. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find Petitioner’s “[b]y definition” argument persuasive in the anticipation context and, for those same reasons, do not find it persuasive when couched as an obviousness ground. We determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that independent claim 1 would have been obvious over Hamada. Petitioner’s arguments as to dependent claims 2, 3, 8–16, 19, and 20 (Pet. 24–26, 44–45, 47) do not cure the underlying defect in its obviousness theory with regard to independent claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner also has not demonstrated that those dependent claims would have been obvious over Hamada. F. The Remaining Obviousness Grounds Based on Hamada in Combination” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,623,982 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,623,982
• Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2019 · IPR2017-01993 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to teach the claimed now-starting predetermined time period.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In sum, the claimed predicting requires that there be an amount of time during which locations of the user device can be determined. The claim undeniably specifies the end of that time period: at the end of the “predetermined maximum amount of time.” But such ending is relative to a beginning, which has been the source of dispute in this trial. As discussed above, the plain reading of the claim urges a beginning coincident with the start of the predicting step. We have found that the specification consistently supports this reading of the claim. And we have also found that time windows disclosed in the specification that start at a specified time in the future do not pertain to the “predetermined maximum amount of time.” Rather, they further modify other unclaimed features, such as whether an action (e.g., sending a promotional code) is performed during operation hours of an establishment, or whether certain predetermined locations are relevant to the predicting step only on week days during a lunch period. Consequently, we are persuaded that the claimed “within the predetermined maximum amount of time” is not as broad as Petitioner argues—to include a future-starting window. The plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language “within” relative to the predicting step dictates otherwise, and the specification provides the context and confirms that this reading aligns with what the inventor described as the invention. For the reasons stated above, we determine that “within the predetermined maximum amount of time,” as recited in the predicting step of claim 1, means that the duration of time or time period starts when the predicting takes place.” slip op. at 21

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Per our analysis of the “within” phrase, discussed above in Section III.A, the “predetermined maximum amount of time” is a period of time with a start time coincident with the predicting step. In contrast, Blegen’s specified time period is some period of time that starts in the future. We do not credit Dr. Robins’s testimony that an “afternoon” on a future date is a “predetermined maximum amount of time,” as that testimony is not based on the proper construction of the claim. Blegen’s future-starting window is not coincident with the prediction action, and no other alleged time window in Blegen has been shown to have the requisite start time. Rather, Blegen looks to future locations during a future-starting window. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 68. Consequently, we determine that Blegen does not teach the “within the predetermined maximum amount of time” limitation.” slip op. at 26

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

    “opportunity in its Reply to brief the instant ground vis-à-vis the determination that the Petition provides insufficient explanation of the asserted combination. Reply 23−25. Petitioner again refers to Froloff’s “time radius” as a “maximum time period . . . between the present time and the estimated time of arrival,” and states that the Petition offered the operation of the modified system: “By sending the advertisement a period of time before the user is expected to arrive at a predetermined location, the advertisement’s relevance and value are enhanced.” Id. at 24 (citing Pet. 69; Robins Decl. ¶ 212). This explanation, however, is presented in the Petition under the heading “Reasons to Combine” and is substantially the same reason to combine provided for the combination of Charlebois and Gillies: “By targeting the advertisement to users who are likely to be at the predetermined location within the ‘time period’ associated with the “event,” the advertisement’s relevance and value are enhanced.” Pet. 45. Relying on this vague and conclusory rationale to combine as an explanation of how the proposed teachings are combined is insufficient. We are not persuaded that this explanation adequately provides the “operation” of the modified system. At best, the explanation informs us that sending an advertisement beforehand provides an advantage: relevance and value of the advertisement are enhanced. The explanation provides no detail of how Petitioner contends the Froloff “time radius” fits with the teachings of either Charlebois or Gillies. Further, asserting that the combination of Charlebois/Gillies/Froloff sends advertisements before the user arrives at a predetermined location does not factually distinguish this combination from the Charlebois/Gillies combination, which Petitioner asserts also performs the operation of sending beforehand advertisements to users likely to be at the sales event. In sum, Petitioner’s attempt in the Reply to explain the Petition as providing detail sufficient to show its obviousness contentions based on Froloff does not remedy the insufficiencies we noted in our Decision on Institution.” slip op. at 49

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner further urges us to consider the impact of Dr. Robins’s “unrebutted” opinion regarding the predicting step. Reply 12−13. We recognize that Petitioner filed a declaration in support of its Petition, while Patent Owner did not. However, we do not discount Patent Owner’s arguments on claim construction merely because no expert testimony supports those arguments, particularly when the arguments are based on the intrinsic record. We also do not credit expert testimony that is at odds with the claim language or the specification—as is Dr. Robins’s relevant testimony. See Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A court may look to extrinsic evidence so long as the extrinsic evidence does not contradict the meaning otherwise apparent from the intrinsic record.” (citation omitted)). For instance, Dr. Robins opines that the “predetermined maximum amount of time is ‘lunch time on weekdays’ from 11:30 am to 2:00 pm,” as disclosed in the “restaurant” example. Robins Decl. ¶ 45. Dr. Robins explains that this time window “specifies the maximum amount of time during which a lunch offer will be sent to the user device.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:17−27). But as we explained above, this time period serves to limit the applicability of the predetermined locations in the prediction, but does not refer to the “predetermined maximum amount of time.” Dr. Robins does not explain how the specification’s description of limiting applicability of the predetermined locations in any way also implicates the “predetermined maximum amount of time.” And just because Dr. Robins’s testimony in this regard is unrebutted does not mean that we should give it weight, especially when we find that it is not consistent with the ’199 patent disclosure. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that we should construe the phrase as Petitioner proposes merely because its proffered expert’s testimony is unrebutted and Patent Owner has no expert.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,414,199 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,414,199
• Apple Inc. / Snap Inc. et al. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2018 · IPR2017-00225 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 and 8 were not shown unpatentable because the Petition did not establish a persuasive reason to add a client-side message database to the asserted prior-art combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We do not agree with Petitioner. Although the ’433 patent Specification provides for a message database at the transport server, that database is for storing the messages of the one or more recipients that are not available, and, therefore, cannot receive instant voice messages. Ex. 1001, 22:5363. When a user becomes available, database (storage) manager 710 retrieves the undelivered instant voice messages from the database, and client manager 706 delivers the messages to the designated, now available, recipients. Id. Thus, message database 710 at the transport server stores and retrieves instant voice messages upon command from the client manager 706, whereas message database 310, of Figure 3, stores and retrieves instant voice messages upon command of file manager 308. This distinction is significant because claims 1 and 6 directly link the recited “message database” to the “file manager,” and no other component of the disclosed system. Further, the recited “file manager” performs the “storing,” for example, “in response to a user request,” according to the claim language of claims 1 and 6. The ’433 patent Specification lacks any description of the transport server’s message database or database manager storing instant voice messages in response to a user request. Indeed, the transport server does not store instant voice messages in the database in response to a user’s request, because it only stores messages in the database when the recipient is unavailable. In fact, the message database of the transport server stores messages at the request of client manager 706, and on condition that a recipient is not available. Ex. 1001, 22:5363; see also id. at 8:3843 (describing the local server in a similar manner, delivering messages to the available recipients and temporarily storing the instant voice messages for unavailable recipients). Further, the Specification contains no disclosure of “distributed” applications or programs or any other indication that the “instant voice messaging application” is a “distributed” application with components placed throughout the system (at clients and servers). Petitioner’s reliance on Figure 7 as supporting the contention of a “distributed” application, as discussed above, is unavailing. Other than having the same name, the message database of the transport servers (Figure 7) is a different message database from the one recited in claims 1 and 6 and described in Figure 3.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art focuses too generally on experience in “communications technology.” The enunciation of such experience is too generic to be useful in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art under any of the GPAC factors. For instance, experience with “communications technology” is untethered to addressing problems and solutions in facilitating short messaging services, such as in Vuori, or to whether active workers in the appropriate field would manifest such a general experience in “communications technology.” Vuori, for instance, focuses on facilitating short messaging service in the context of a wireless telecommunication network. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 57. Therefore, we cannot ignore that the field of work would be more narrow than generally “communications technology.” We find that Petitioner’s assessment is proper and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For example, Vuori (Ex. 1009) is directed to an instant messaging system in the context of telecommunication and computer networks, such as a Global System for Mobile Communications (“GSM”), General Packet Radio Service (“GPRS”), Universal Mobile Telecommunication Systems (“UMTS”), and the Internet. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3539, Figs. 3, 6; see also Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 14 (addressing messaging systems that use the Internet as a telecommunication and/or computer network). Thus, it is evident from the prior art that Petitioner’s assessment is appropriate because, in addition to a certain degree, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience in communications systems, particularly in messaging systems, data networks including VoIP and mobile telephony, or comparable industry experience. Consequently, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 23

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Petitioner’s rationale wanting. Petitioner proffers expert testimony of a reason to combine: “to improve the organization and retrieval of audio messages stored on a user’s device.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 109. Dr. Forys also states that “it would have been obvious to incorporate Holtzberg’s database structure into Abburi because such incorporation amounts to nothing more than applying a known technique (e.g., storing voice messages in a database) to a known device (e.g. the message recipient’s device in Abburi) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (a user device storing audio messages in a database).” Id. None of the proffered testimony is persuasive, and because it is not supported by either explanation or supporting facts, we give it little to no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). First, there is no explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would either de-centralize Abburi or relocate the database in Holtzberg to achieve the “user device storing audio messages in a database.” Dr. Forys’s conclusion that the claimed message database would have been obvious is unexplained and belies the specific teachings in both Abburi and Holtzberg that rely on the architecture of their systems as having centralized storage. Without “a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory generalizations,” Dr. Forys’s testimony is not sufficient. See Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).” slip op. at 34

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “provides “specifics of how and why” Holtzberg is integrated into the system of Abburi. Reply 15. The argument and citations are not persuasive. The Reply Forys Declaration (Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 1214) provides new reasons for a motivation to combine (for example, motivation to provide storage at both the client and server for sent and received messages). This testimony does not just explain the rationale provided in the Petition (focused on incorporation of Holtzberg’s database at the user device of Abburi). Rather, Dr. Forys’s reply explanation provides an expanded rationale that is different from the rationale stated in the Petition. For example, Dr. Forys opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that the communication link between the user device and the server system may be down or disrupted from time to time, and the recorded audio messages to be sent to the system must be stored until communication is reestablished.” Ex. 1019 ¶ 13. Dr. Forys’s opinion does not respond appropriately to the argument by Patent Owner that the teachings of Abburi and Holtzberg would have led away from incorporating a database at the client device. Rather, the reply opinion testimony diverges from the Petition’s rationale of improving organization and retrieval of audio at the client device. Put another way, the reasoning of redundancy of storage to account for communication failures between the server and the client is another rationale—different and distinct from the rationale asserted in the Petition.3 The Reply is not responsive to the teaching away argument, and it has come too late in the proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response”); Office Trial Practice 3 We find the further reasons in the Reply Forys Declaration similarly problematic. For instance, Dr. Forys opines that it would be convenient to playback older messages to recall their content, and would enable the user to track messages and avoid repeated queries to the audio message store. Ex. 1019 ¶ 13. Again, the Petition and the First Forys Declaration neither state nor explain a rationale based on convenience of local storage or of conservation of server resources. Indeed, the only reason or explanation timely provided addresses the generic benefit of organization and retrieval of data. Pet. 29. Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“While replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned.”). Accordingly, we will not consider the new theories of obviousness in the Reply and Reply Forys Declaration. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding reasonable the Board’s judgment about when a Reply contention crosses the line from the responsive to the new); see also Tr. 89:590:5 (counsel for Petitioner offering argument regarding whether Reply falls outside the permissible scope and responding that “you could eliminate our petitioner reply entirely and we still think that there is a complete showing that all claim elements are rendered obvious under all five grounds, both combinations”).” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 8,995,433 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,995,433
• NXP USA, Inc. v. Inside Secure And NFC Technology, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2017 · IPR2016-00692 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 22 not shown unpatentable over either § 103 combination because Petitioner failed to establish key routing-table and header-field limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have “a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable field, and approximately two years of professional experience with data communications and routing, including in the context of wireless communications as applied to RFID systems, or other relevant industry experience.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30). Patent Owner does not dispute” slip op. at 11

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

    “Although the Federal Circuit has endorsed application of the broadest reasonable interpretation in construing claims during postgrant proceedings before the Board, it has cautioned that such endorsement “is not to say, however, that the Board may construe claims during IPR so broadly that its constructions are unreasonable under general claim construction principles.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Rather, ‘claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent.’” Id. (quoting Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). In addition, “[t]he PTO should also consult the patent’s prosecution history in proceedings in which the patent has been brought back to the agency for a second review.” Id. (citing Tempo Lighting Inc. v. Tivoli LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The Federal Circuit has emphasized that, even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “the Board’s construction ‘cannot be divorced from the specification and record evidence,’” id. (quoting In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011)), and “‘must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach,’” Id. (quoting In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). With these principles in mind, we determine that Patent Owner’s proposed construction conforms with the broadest reasonable interpretation of “header field,” which excludes the “routing parameters” that are saved in the “routing table.” At the oral hearing, Patent Owner conceded that “if you look at the term header field in a vacuum without any context, it could mean” slip op. at 14

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

    “unpatentability, we determine that there are multiple deficiencies with Petitioner’s showing with respect to the proposed combination as related to specifically recited claim limitations. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 35 U.S.C. § 312(a) (requiring the petition to identify “in writing and with particularity . . . the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (requiring “a statement of the precise relief request”). Because we find that even the combination, if effected in the manner proposed by Petitioner, does not meet all limitations recited in the challenged claims, we do not reach the issue of whether Petitioner articulates sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to effect the combination. See Pet. 21–28; PO Resp. 21–47. First, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner insufficiently shows that the combination it proposes teaches or suggests “using the routing channel number as an index to select the destination point to which the 7 Although we rely on illustrations of Petitioner’s proposed combination as set forth in the Reply because they are more clear, we find those illustrations consistent with the position taken by Petitioner in the Petition. See Pet. 24– 27. controller subsequently sends the data.” PO Resp. 59–61. This limitation is recited in both independent claims 1 and 12 in the context of searching for a destination point of the data in the routing table. Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 6–9, col. 20, ll. 40–43. In articulating how it draws a correspondence between elements recited in the claims and entries of its proposed routing table, Petitioner makes the following identifications: (1) the recited “routing channel number” corresponds to the channel identifier in the inbound VCI allocated to a first data path defined by the card access module and router; (2) the recited “source point” corresponds to “an identifier of the SAP associated with a smart card application on the contact smart card . . . in the inbound ‘VPI’; and (3) the recited “destination point” corresponds to “an identifier of an SAP associated with software . . . in the outbound VPI.” Pet. 36. With these correspondences, we agree with Patent Owner that the channel identifier in the inbound VCI cannot function as an “index to select the destination point” as the claims require because there is no unique association of the outbound VPI with the inbound VCI.8 PO Resp. 59. This is evident from the table provided in the Reply, and reproduced above, in 8 Although we agree with Petitioner, as explained above in Section II.C.3, that a construction of “routing table” does not require a “one-to-one correspondence between the routing channel number and each corresponding routing parameter,” see PO Resp. 57 (emphasis added), the nature of an “index” nevertheless requires a unique association of the index with what it indexes. That is, an “index to select the destination point” must uniquely identify the selected destination point, even if the same destination point can be selected by multiple indexes. A “one-to-one” correspondence would additionally require that each destination point be selected only by a single index. which the same VCIin value of “Chin 1” is associated with different values of VPIout, namely “CPU SAP 1” in the first row and “RF SAP 1” in the third row.” slip op. at 29

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner also contends that “even under [Patent Owner’s] improper interpretation, it would have been an obvious implementation choice to use unique channel numbers as discussed in §V.B [of the Reply], such that the destination point is selected only with the channel number.” Reply 27–28 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 123). We do not consider this argument because it goes beyond the scope of argument made in the Petition. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’ [as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)].”).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 7,905,419 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,905,419
• Hulu, LLC / Netflix, Inc. et al. v. CRFD Research, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 1, 2016 · IPR2015-00259 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–11, 13–15, 17–20, 23–25, 29–31, 34–36, and 38–41 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not teach transmitting session history after discontinuing the session.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claim Term Interpretation “modality” a preferred mode of interaction “device profile” information pertaining to the operation of a device, such as the data format or modality of the device “in response to . . . in response to the second device being made activation of said active, such as by a user logging on to the second device” second device “session” a series of information transactions between communicating devices during a particular time period “discontinuing” terminating or otherwise stopping, with the ability to be resumed “discontinued” terminated or otherwise stopped, with the ability to be resumed “session transfer computer hardware and/or software that module” participates in the transfer of a session See Dec. on Inst. 6–9; DISH Network Corp. v. CRFD Research, Inc., Case IPR2015-00627, slip op. at 6–9 (PTAB June 3, 2015) (Paper 9); Unified Patents Inc. v. CRFD Research, Inc., Case IPR2015-00157, slip op. at 6–9 (PTAB Apr. 30, 2015) (Paper 8); Iron Dome LLC v. CRFD Research, Inc., Case IPR2015-00055, slip op. at 6–10 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2015) (Paper 10). The parties do not dispute these interpretations in their Patent Owner Response and Reply. We do not perceive any reason or evidence that compels any deviation from these interpretations. Accordingly, we adopt our previous analysis for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Having reviewed all of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Bates expressly or inherently discloses transmitting the session history “after said session is discontinued on said first device.” See Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255–56 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference.”). We begin by noting that there is nothing in Bates explicitly disclosing when the alleged “session” ends. Petitioner acknowledged this at the hearing. Tr. 42:5–8. Bates, however, does disclose what occurs during a “session.” The term “session” in the claims means a series of information transactions between communicating devices during a particular time period. See supra Section II.A. Bates uses the slightly different term “browsing session,” which it defines as the “period of time when the browser 240 is executing on a client computer 106 and a network connection exists between the client 106 and the network 104 allowing a user to traverse network addresses corresponding to the servers 108.” Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 61–67. Thus, the “browsing session” in Bates is the period of time when the browser program is “executing” on the client computer and the client computer has an open connection to the network servers with which it is communicating. During this time, the client computer in Bates generates browser information in response to user input (e.g., by creating a history of websites visited by the user). See id. at Abstract (“A first browser executing on a first computer generates browser information in response to user input.”), col. 9, ll. 17–46 (describing the generation and storage of browser information in buffer 242), col. 2, ll. 2–10 (reciting “generating the user-configured browser information during execution of a first network browser on a first computer in response to user-input commands”), claim 1 (same). Accordingly, the alleged “session” in Bates (i.e., the series of information transactions between communicating devices) occurs during the time period of what Bates refers to as the “browsing session.”” slip op. at 13

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther

    “that are procedurally improper and not entitled to consideration. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), a reply “may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” See also Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., – F.3d –, 2016 WL 2620512, at *8–9 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) (concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)); Apple Inc. v. e-Watch, Inc., Case IPR2015-00412, slip op. at 44 (PTAB May 6, 2016) (Paper 50) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean embark in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the position originally taken in the Petition. Accepting such belatedly presented new arguments would be unjust to the Patent Owner and we decline to do so.”); Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,620 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Oppositions and replies may rely upon appropriate evidence to support the positions asserted. Reply evidence, however, must be responsive and not merely new evidence that could have been presented earlier to support the movant’s motion.”); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“While replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned. . . . Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability or unpatentability of an original or proposed substitute claim, and new evidence that could have been presented in a prior filing.”). First, Petitioner provides a lengthy explanation as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Bates to operate based on the alleged timing of Microsoft Windows shutdown signals and the interaction between a browser application and email software. Reply 6–9. Petitioner’s explanation amounts to a new theory for why Bates allegedly discloses transmitting the session history “after said session is discontinued on said first device” that was not discussed in the Petition. See Pet. 20–24 (citing only Bates’s disclosure of the events “upon user request,” “at shutdown,” and “at idle period”); Tr. 9:1–4 (acknowledging that shutdown signals are not discussed in the Petition). Indeed, Petitioner does not cite in its Reply any testimony from Dr. Claypool’s declaration or other evidence submitted with the Petition, but rather relies solely on the cross-examination testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Mohapatra. See Pet. 20–24 (citing Ex. 1003); Reply 6–9 (citing Ex. 1018); Tr. 13:18–21.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field as well as at least two years of academic or industry experience in the software field,” citing the testimony of Dr. Claypool. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 55–58). Dr. Mohapatra similarly testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science or computer engineering with approximately 2 years of practical work experience or post-graduate research in a field such as computer networking and/or distributed systems.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 11. Based on our review of the ’233 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’233 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of the parties’ declarants, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or computer engineering (or its equivalent), and at least two years of experience with computer networking, distributed systems, or similar fields. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 5–67 (disclosing that “[t]he invention generally relates to session management in a distributed computer network,” and describing issues in the prior art when a user has “several communication-enabled devices” and wants to switch between them). We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,191,233 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,191,233

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.