• Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 20, 2020 · IPR2018-01240 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious over Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable over Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The ’558 specification and the context of claims 6, 8, and 13 and the related language of claim 10 support that the “source” must be able to receive both the boosted supply voltage and the first supply voltage (a selective boost). PO Resp. 35–38; Ex. 1201, 1:42–50, 5:31–49, 8:55–62, 8:62–9:17, 9:21–36, 10:19–29, Figs. 3 and 5. Accordingly, we do not agree with Petitioner that the use of a conditional “or” in claim 10 indicates that only one voltage is necessary to meet the claims. Pet. Reply 3–9. We credit Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments that the language of claims 10 and 11 and the ’558 patent specification support that claim 10, like dependent claim 11, require a selective boost. See PO Resp. 26–29. Petitioner’s arguments assert both that Patent Owner improperly limits the construction to one disclosed embodiment and that the Patent Owner’s construction improperly excludes a disclosed embodiment. Pet Reply 6–8. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s construction should be rejected because it excludes an embodiment. Pet. Reply 6 (citing EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., 257 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The cases Petitioner cites refer to constructions that read out preferred embodiments. See EPOS Techs., 766 F.3d at 1347; Dow Chem. Co., 257 F.3d, at 1378; Anchor Wall Sys., 340 F.3d at 1308. Petitioner provides no persuasive evidence that the embodiment they identify as being excluded is the preferred embodiment of the ’558 patent. Further, Petitioner cites no support that claims 10 or 11 must be construed to cover all embodiments. See Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Federal Circuit has stated that the broadest reasonable construction is not required to cover the most embodiments in a patent specification, but “must be reasonable in light of the claims and specification. The fact that one construction may cover more embodiments than another does not categorically render that construction reasonable.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that exclusion of a single embodiment renders Patent Owner’s claim construction improper.” slip op. at 12

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

    “persuasive. We credit Petitioner’s argument and evidence regarding the Chu and Choi 2010 concerns with power degradation and efficiency, which Patent Owner’s declarant testified were common concerns known before the ’558 patent. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1330, 13:12–20, 13:21–14:2, 259:7–18); Ex. 1027 ¶ 18. We find that Petitioner presents persuasive evidence and argument that the issues of power degradation and efficiency were known in the art and within the knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See id.; see also PO Resp. 32–33 (noting that “Patent Owner does not contest that efficiency and output distortion/robustness problems were generally known in the art.”). We also find that Petitioner identifies persuasive motivations to combine from the references themselves, identifying specific teachings in Choi 2010 in reference to boost converter systems like those in Chu. Pet. 57–58 (citing Ex. 1306, 1074, 1077). Indeed, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kelley, agreed that Choi 2010 teaches the use of boost converters to address battery degradation. Ex. 1030, 105:20–106:4, 156:3–6. Finally, Petitioner provides evidence that degrading battery performance affecting operation further motivates the combination of Chu and Choi 2010. Ex. 1030, 165:17–22; Pet. 57–61. We are also persuaded by Petitioner’s citation to secondary references of examples that use a boost converter to prevent distortion provides further support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chu with Choi 2010 and Hanington. See Pet. 58–60 (citing Ex. 1318, code (57); Ex. 1315, 8); Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 109–111. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the secondary references attempts to bodily incorporate the teachings from these references into Chu and Choi 2010. Patent Owner also fails to address persuasively the support for the teachings these secondary references provide for modifying Chu’s supply modulator to incorporate a boost converter as disclosed in Choi 2010 and Hanington. Pet. 58–60 (citing Ex. 1318, code (57); Ex. 1315, 8); Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 109–111. Indeed, Patent Owner’s declarant agrees extending battery life, which is discussed in Exhibit 1315 and cited by Petitioner as a motivation to combine Chu and Choi 2010 (Pet. 58–60), would be achieved by the combination of Chu and Choi 2010 and was within the ordinary skill of an artisan. Ex. 1330, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12. We also disagree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to show how to combine the references to solve the conflicting problems that Petitioner alleges as motivation—efficiency and degradation. PO Resp. 33– 35. First, we credit Dr. Kelley’s testimony that the result of the combination was within the knowledge and skill of an artisan. Ex. 1330, 105:20–106:4, 156:3–6, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12. Second, we find that the evidence and argument in the Petition explain sufficiently how Chu would have been modified to incorporate the boost supply voltage of Choi 2010 and Hanington and that such modifications involve typical and well known components widely used in boost converters. See Pet. 68–70; Ex. 1303 ¶¶ 112–113, 126–127; Ex. 1329 ¶ 24.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Owner argues “Choi 2010’s boost is a constant boost applied to the linear amplifier, and thus teaches away from a selective boost.” PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner further argues combining Myers’ selective boost with Choi 2010’s constant boost would destroy the purpose and benefits of Choi 2010’s design. Id. at 43. We do not find that Choi 2010’s use of a constant boost teaches away from selective boost in Myers. Patent Owner’s evidence and argument do not persuade us that Choi 2010’s teachings of boost exclude or discourage the use of selective boost. The portion of Choi 2010 Patent Owner cites does not criticize or discourage the use of selective boost, but applies boost generally to achieve its goals. See Ex. 1306, 1333–1334. We do not find that the teachings in Choi 2010 discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art from working with boosted voltage to achieve battery efficiencies. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Choi 2010 does not discredit or criticize selective boost to improve efficiency.” slip op. at 23

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

    “the ITC investigation (see Ex. 2001, 36–37), Petitioner does not assert the direct incorporation of Myers technology into the combination of Chu and Choi 2010/Hanington. Instead, Petitioner asserts that Myers teaches a method of choosing a power source to improve operation efficiency. Pet. Reply 22–23; Pet. 72–76; Ex. 1312, 9:18–21, 1:19–23. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Kelley, acknowledges this teaching. Ex. 1330, 270:13–271:5. Petitioner’s arguments and evidence differ materially from those cited in the ITC investigation. See Ex. 2001, 36–37. In the case before us, Petitioner does not directly incorporate Myers hardware into Chu or Choi 2010 and Hanington, but asserts that Myers— particularly Figure 7 that discloses the technique of switching between two different power sources—teaches a technique that would have been within the level of skill of an artisan at the time of patenting. Pet. Reply 23; see Pet. 72–76; Ex. 1330, 283:16–284:1; see also Ex. 1330, 152:21–153:4 (agreeing that a person of ordinary skill would have known how to select between two power sources). Contrary to the combination of the envelope elimination and restoration (EER) circuits of Myers into the linear amplifiers of Chu and Choi 2010 argued at the ITC, Petitioner has provided testimony and citations to the record that Myers’s selection functionality is applicable to the combination of Chu and Choi 2010. We credit Petitioner’s argument and evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chu, Choi 2010, and Hanington with the technique from Myers and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Pet. 79–81 (providing supporting argument and testimony regarding battery and boosted voltage efficiency as taught by Myers). We find that Petitioner’s argument and evidence provide sufficient rationales with articulated reasoning to support the application of the Myers selection technique with the amplifiers of Chu and Choi 2010 to achieve battery efficiency during described operating modes. Pet. 57–61 77–82. Indeed, Dr. Kelley’s testimony supports the applicability of the techniques in Myers. See Ex. 1330, 270:13–271:5, 281:6–282:2, 284:6–12; Ex. 1312, 9:18–21 (discussing Myers’ teaching of choosing power source for operation efficiency). Based on our review of the full record, Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence an articulated rationale with articulated reasons to combine Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers. In addition, Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Chu, Choi 2010, Hanington, and Myers teach the limitations of dependent claim 11.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,698,558 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,698,558
• Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2020 · IPR2018-01252 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Apple did not prove claims 1–6 and 8–20 unpatentable as obvious over Jin and Elias because it failed to show Jin teaches moving a card with directional contact.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “art include (1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. Moreover, these factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).” slip op. at 7

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

    “[W]e need only construe those claim limitations ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Because the parties did not request the construction of any limitation and no express constructions are necessary to resolve a controversy, we do not construe any of the limitations. slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “prima facie case of unpatentability.” Trial Practice Guide Update (August 2018), 14, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ 2018_Revised_Trial_Practice_Guide.pdf. As the Federal Circuit has explained, [i]t 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). “All arguments for the relief requested in a motion must be made in the motion. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Once the Board identifies new issues presented for the first time in reply, neither this court nor the Board must parse the reply brief to determine which, if any, parts of that brief are responsive and which are improper. As the Board noted, “it will not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting same). Based on that standard, the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB properly refused to consider a new theory raised for the first time in a reply brief:” slip op. at 23

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

    “preliminary,” “based on the evidentiary record developed thus far,” and that “[o]ur final decision will be based on the record as fully developed during trial.” Id. at 32. We further advised the parties that we were not “determin[ing] whether an individual asserted fact is indisputable or whether a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner.” Id. at 31. Having conducted the trial, for the reasons discussed below, our preliminary finding is not supported by the entirety of the record. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that Jin does not teach or suggest “directional contact of moving the [selected] card along . . . the touch-sensitive display screen” and agree that the combination of Jin and Elias does not teach or suggest “dismissing the selected first card or second card from the touch-sensitive display screen in the second direction so that the corresponding first application or second application is closed” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Jin teaches or suggests that the processor responds to directional contact moving the selected card in the second direction on the display screen. Jin’s Figures 9C shows a finger moving along the screen—directional contact. Ex. 1005, Fig. 9C. However, Jin’s Figure 9C does not illustrate the card moving along with the finger. Id. Rather, Jin’s Figure 9E simply shows the cards in a new position without describing what happened on the display while the location of the cards were changed. See id. at Fig. 9E. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven that Jin teaches directional contact moving the selected card in the second direction on the display screen.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,683,362 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,683,362
• Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 2, 2020 · IPR2018-01279 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 and 16–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach composing a message after the incoming call; the contingent motion to amend was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s formulation. Inst. Dec. 17. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s formulation. See PO Resp. 12–13; Ex. 2004 ¶ 57 (Jeffay Decl.) (“[F]or the purposes of this declaration, I have applied Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.”). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, except that we delete the qualifier “or more” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of practical experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the the art would have had either (1) a Master of Science Degree in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or an equivalent field (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree) with a concentration in wireless communication and networking systems or (2) a Bachelor’s Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science and having two years of experience in wireless communication and networking systems. Moreover, additional education in a relevant field, such as computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above.” slip op. at 7

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

    “recited in claim 1 means generating a message and does not encompass using pre-composed messages. That construction is consistent with the language recited in the claims, the ’037 patent, and the use of “composing” in a related patent. We begin with the words of claim 1. Claim 1 recites “in response to receiving an incoming call, prompting a user of the first computing device to incoming call by composing, while not answering the incoming call, a message to a user of the second computing device.” Ex. 1001, 10:7–11. Based on the ordinary meaning of the claim language, the claim requires prompting a user to enter user input and that the entered user input “instructs the first computing device to handle the incoming call by composing . . . a message.” See id. That is, it is the user input—which itself is in response to an incoming call—which causes the composing to take place. Thus, the language of the claim requires that the composing takes place after the incoming call is received and the user input is entered. Therefore, the language of the claim precludes using content composed prior to the call and user input, i.e., a precomposed message. See Ex. 2004 ¶ 73 (Jeffay Decl.). This construction is also consistent with the written description of the ’037 patent. The ’037 patent describes two different ways of generating messages. First, the ’037 patent describes how a device may be configured to respond to all incoming calls with a precomposed message, such as “on vacation.” Ex. 1001, 5:18–23. However, claim 1 was amended during prosecution to exclude automatically responding with a precomposed message, thus excluding that embodiment from the scope of claim 1. See Ex. 1002, 157 (amendment to claim 1), 165–68 (prosecution history of the ’037 patent) (distinguishing prior art references which automatically responded with a precomposed message); see also Ex. 2004 ¶ 70 (Jeffay Decl.) (“Accordingly, the Applicant amended the claims to distinguish over Brown and clearly disclaimed claim scope corresponding to the embodiments in which an incoming call is automatically responded to with a message.” (citing Ex. 1002, 166–68)). response to a trigger—user input—from the user. See Ex. 1001, 5:24–54, 7:52–8:2, Fig. 4 (step 470 (“address message body”) is after steps 410 (“receive incoming call”) and 435 (“message response?”)). Because the message is generated in response to the user input, it does not exist prior to user input being entered. That is, a precomposed message is not being used.” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Our rules require the Petition to include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (2017). Additionally, the Petition “must identify . . . [h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable under must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (2017). Our rules further provide for a petitioner to file a reply to respond to arguments made in the patent owner’s response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (2019). Petitioner choose neither option to set forth its arguments regarding Mäkelä’s claim 28. We decline Petitioner’s invitation to consider arguments presented in papers outside of the Petition and Petitioner’s Reply. We treat Petitioner’s request that we consider arguments only presented in the Opposition to the Motion to Amend as a request for incorporation by reference. However, our rules prohibit “incorporat[ion] by reference from one document into another document.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (2019); see also DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (Incorporation “by reference amounts to a self-help increase in the length of the [ ] brief[,]” and “is a pointless imposition on the court’s time. A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”)). Petitioner has not persuasively argued why we should not apply Rule 42.6(a)(3) in these circumstances. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) (2019) (“The Board may waive or suspend a requirement of parts 1, 41, and 42 and may place conditions on the waiver or suspension.”). Although Petitioner may have intended to make the argument in both Petitioner’s Reply and the Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Tr. 58–59), it did not do so.8” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “With regard to the merits, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown how Mäkelä teaches “composing . . . a message” as recited in claim 1. Neither the Petition nor Petitioner’s Reply specifically addresses when the reply message is prepared. See Pet. 16–17; Pet. Reply 14. Moreover, Dr. Mandayam—Petitioner’s expert witness— conceded that the messages in Mäkelä are composed and stored prior to the incoming call being received: Q. So I think just to repeat the question, is there any disclosure in Mäkelä that the message sent by the user in response to an incoming call is anything other than a message previously stored by the user before the incoming call? Yes or no, please. . . . that have been composed ahead -- previously by the user with the ability to choose them. . . . . Q. The modes of response listed in Claim 27, that is a voice message, an e-mail message, a facsimile, and an SMS message in the form of a character string are all limited to precomposed messages. Do you agree with that? . . . THE WITNESS: So the messages have been composed by the user and stored, as we have gone through this already a few times. So that is stored and composed and resides in the device. And the user is making the choice in response to a call to send whichever their preferred option is. And there is some dynamism if you read through the specifications where there are responses you can fine-tune based on the amount of time you want to be not disturbed or the amount of time your meeting is in session. So there are things like that. But this is the characterization, and I think this is something I agree. . . . Q. So I think we agree that the user selects a message that is to be transmitted in response to an incoming call. The question is would you agree that in Mäkelä the user’s selection of the message in response to an incoming call is limited to precomposed messages? . . .” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,844,037 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,844,037
• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2019 · PGR2018-00029 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: the Board found them ineligible under § 101 and also found claims 1–15 unpatentable under § 112(a).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “division” to “way of managing a game and playing a game” does not alter our analysis, because “displaying a panel selection in a division” is no more than identifying high level details of a game that are substantively analogous to how “wagering game,” “dice game,” and “bingo game” are identified in the aforementioned cases. Accordingly, we find that independent claim 1 recites “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” which, under the Guidance, is one of certain methods of organizing human activity and, thus, an abstract idea.” slip op. at 26

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “way of managing a game and playing a game involving displaying a panel selection in a division.” Accordingly, Petitioner is not required to account for any limitations within this characterization, at least for the purposes of determining whether a claim limitation is “well-understood, routine, conventional.” And when this framework is applied properly, we see how most of Patent Owner’s assertions fall away. First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has provided no evidence that the claimed use of panels is well-understood, routine, or conventional. PO Resp. 32–39 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:36–38, 6:42–46, 7:27, 7:36, 7:44–53. 7:55–56; Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 22–30). More specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the panels disclosed in the ’583 patent may “display a still image,” “display a movie when the panels are emphasized and displayed,” “zoom in,” and may have portions of frames, in which the panels are disposed, that “display the texts showing the sound effect and/or an effect display portion.” PO Resp. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:27, 7:36, 7:44–53, 7:55–56). Patent Owner asserts that these elements provide an interactive and dynamic format using panels that was unique and unconventional. PO Resp. 34. However, Petitioner is not required to show that those properties of the panels described in the ’583 patent, whether in an interactive and dynamic format or otherwise, are well-understood, routine, and conventional, because these elements are not recited in any of the independent claims.11 Relatedly, Petitioner is not slip op. at 45

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateNot shown unpatentable

    “2. Analysis Petitioner asserts that the Specification of the ’583 patent fails to provide adequate written description support for the following limitations of representative claim 1:” slip op. at 58

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteNot shown unpatentable

    “Pet. Reply 25; see also Tr. 37:3–11 (continuing line of argument). Here, once again, Petitioner mistakes breadth, which is permitted, for indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d at 693. As admitted by Patent Owner, the limitation and, in particular the term “allowed,” is certainly broad. See Tr. 73:15–74:2. But as stated by Mr. Crane, a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “one character would not be allowed to dispose a panel . . . into a division that is occupied by a panel belonging to another character,” or if “an attempt is being made to dispose a panel into a space where the panel will not fit, it will also not be allowed to be disposed.” PO Sur-Reply 22–23 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 44; Ex. 1009, 107:24–108:4). Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence or analysis to show that such an example from the ’583 patent is insufficient guidance to one of ordinary skill and compels a determination of indefiniteness.17 For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1–15 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 69

  Patent outcomesUS 9,636,583 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Enfish · Electric Power · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,636,583
• Expedia, Inc. / Homeaway.Com, Inc. et al. v. International Business Machines Corp.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jul 1, 2019 · IPR2018-01743 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing of its decision denying institution of inter partes review of claims 1–25, finding Petitioner had not shown an abuse of discretion.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also Dec. 11 (citing statute). Petitioner also has the burden to “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 3

  • Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petition for the limitation of “application . . . that include interactive services.” See generally Req. Our own review of the Petition results in the same. See generally Pet. Pages 12–17 of the Petition provide constructions for several terms, including “application,” but not for the entirety of the limitation identified above. Indeed, Petitioner relied on the Board’s previous decisions for both explicit and implicit constructions of other claim limitations. See Pet. 13–15, 86, 93, 96, 104 (citing Ex. 1004, 40–41, 137– 138, 146–147, 151–152, 157–158, 161, 171). Noticeably absent, however, is the same for “application . . . that include interactive services.” We could not have misapprehended or overlooked a claim construction that was not made. Even if we delve somewhat into the cited portion of the Board’s previous decision, however, we remain unpersuaded. Specifically, while Petitioner’s quotation of the Decision is correct, the Decision later states: “We agree that the body of claim 4 does not require applications with interactive services, but ‘interactive services’ must be one kind of application that can be requested.” Ex. 1004, 136. So, while our analysis may have been altered somewhat, we are unpersuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that maintaining the same result, denial of institution on this basis, would have been an abuse of discretion.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “and, Orbitz, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–25 of U.S. Patent 7,072,849 B1 (Ex. 1002, “the ’849 Patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). International Business Machines Corp. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On March 19, 2019, we issued a Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review. Paper 8 (“Decision”). On May 1, 2019, Petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 11 (“Req.”).1” slip op. at 2

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 7,072,849
• Toyota Motor Corporation v. General Electric CompanyRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jun 14, 2019 · IPR2019-00018 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Toyota’s rehearing request, leaving the denial of institution on claims 16–19 in place because the Petition did not explain how the proposed combination supplied the claimed second DC/DC conversion device.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Mitsutani’s inverter also should be included in its proposed combination of Robinson and Mitsutani. Req. Reh’g 4. Petitioner admits that “the Petition did not call it out separately.” Id. However, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to supplement the Petition, or submit new arguments that were not made in the Petition, after the Decision has noted the deficiencies in the Petitioner’s original analysis. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 4

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “proposed prior art combination teaches or suggests “a second DC/DC conversion device coupleable to an internal charging device,” as recited in independent claim 16. Dec. 11−15. In its Petition, Petitioner asserts that Robinson discloses the claimed “second DC/DC conversion device.” Pet. 31−32 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 145, Fig. 4). Petitioner modifies Robinson’s Figure 4 to “include an additional 4−34 V scavenger power converter for device port 4.” Id. Petitioner’s modified Figure 4 of Robinson is reproduced below with annotations added by Petitioner (id.).” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “The burden to prove unpatentability is on the petitioner, not on the patent owner or the Board. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that the petitioner in an inter partes proceeding has the initial burden of production and the burden” slip op. at 5

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

    “internal charging device” to device port 4 (light pink). Pet. 31. Petitioner asserts that “[t]his second 4−34V scavenger power converter is ‘coupleable to an internal charging device,’ as claimed, because the combined Robinson/Mitsutani system teaches a motor generator that is internal to the vehicle and would be connected to Robinson’s device port 4.” Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 76) (emphases added). slip op. at 4

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,821,668
• Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-01270 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Apple’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because Apple did not show Samsung disclosed the claimed notification and power-button silencing during an incoming call.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify the matters misapprehended or overlooked, and where each matter was addressed in a motion, opposition, or reply. Id. When reconsidering an institution decision, we look for an abuse of discretion, which may be found if there was (1) an erroneous interpretation of law, (2) a factual finding not supported by substantial evidence, or (2) unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c); Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); The Arnold Partnership v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “1006, 32)). We found the cited portions of Samsung to describe (1) that if there was no call already in progress, the user could silence an incoming call with the power button, but neither the in-use information nor call waiting would cause the claimed notification, and (2) that if a call was already in progress, call waiting would display a notification for a new call, but there was nothing to indicate that the user could silence a ‘ring,’ or even the call waiting alert, using the power button. See Decision 16. In other words, the “in-use” notification was insufficient because it was not shown to be displayed while a call was incoming, and the “call waiting” notification was insufficient because it was not shown to be employed at a time a user could use the power button to silence a “ring.”” slip op. at 4

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied

    “New Evidence Petitioner asserts that the “new arguments provided in [the] Request [are] appropriate” because “Petitioners are permitted in a request for rehearing to address inaccurate characterizations that they may not be able” slip op. at 7

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “distinction,” and the reference need not describe a “separate during incoming calls state.” Instead, the problem is that Samsung’s in-use display is described as showing information that one of skill in the art would expect to be shown after a call has been answered (i.e., the timer), and Petitioner failed to establish that the information would have been displayed before a call was answered. In this proceeding, “the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). With no showing that the in-use information would be displayed before the call was answered, Petitioner did not carry its burden.” slip op. at 4

  None
  Patents in suitUS 9,203,940
• Hytera Communications Co. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2019 · IPR2017-02183 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7 and 8 were not shown unpatentable under any of the three § 103 grounds because the cited combinations did not teach transmitting on a non-assigned timeslot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “and the specification to determine whether they expressly or implicitly require a specific order. See Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1369–70. Here, we agree with Patent Owner that the language shows that the results of a step are used in the next step; that is, “step 7[b] ‘preparing to transmit a particular payload type in a timeslot’ [comes before] step 7[c] ‘determining whether the timeslot is a current desired timeslot for the TDMA system,’ because the transmitting device looks at the ‘the timeslot’ identified in the ‘preparing’ step to ‘determin[e]’ whether that timeslot is ‘a current desired timeslot.’” PO Sur-Reply 3–4 (quoting Ex. 1001, cl. 7).” slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the ordered steps 7[c] to 7[e] require transmitting on an alternate timeslot, that is, a timeslot that is not an assigned timeslot. PO Resp. 7–9. The plain language of claim 7 states that the preparing step of limitation 7[b] is for “a timeslot,” indicating that it is broader than the assigned timeslot of the TDMA system. In limitation 7[c], the claim expressly requires a determination of whether the timeslot in the preparing step is the “current desired timeslot” (assigned timeslot) and selecting (limitation 7[d]) the appropriate synch pattern. The “selecting” step of claim 7[d] requires: “if the timeslot is the current desired timeslot, select[] a synchronization pattern selected from the first set of synchronization patterns . . . otherwise select[] a synchronization pattern selected from the second set of synchronization patterns . . . .” The synchronization pattern that is selected in limitation 7[d] is then used during transmission in limitation 7[e]. Thus, although the claims and specification do not explicitly refer to an alternate timeslot, the claim requires transmitting on the timeslot that is not the current desired timeslot (assigned timeslot). See PO Resp. 19–20; Ex. 2008 ¶ 89.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner

    “arguments are directed to products produced by Petitioner, rather than by Patent Owner, products that were found in an Initial Determination (“ID”) of the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) to infringe challenged claims 7 and 8 of the ’991 patent. Ex. 2009, 192–202. In addition, the Administrative Law Judge in that ID found that Petitioner intentionally copied Patent Owner’s patented technology. Id. at 226–228. That finding was based, in part, upon an adverse inference drawn from the repeated invocation of the Fifth Amendment when former employees of Patent Owner were questioned about allegations that they downloaded confidential documents of Patent Owner shortly before becoming employed by Petitioner. Id. at 241–242 (citing LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 123–24 (2d Cir. 1997)). In addition to Patent Owner’s detailed discussion of how Petitioner’s products embody all limitations of the challenged claims, these specific administrative findings support Patent Owner’s position that there is sufficient nexus between its evidence and the challenged claims. PO Resp. 57–62; Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre et Marie Curie v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013).” slip op. at 27

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We are not persuaded by this argument. Petitioner’s arguments go to the weight that should accorded to the ID, not to its admissibility. See Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Vaughan’s challenge goes to the weight of the evidence rather than the admissibility of Lueptow’s testimony and analysis.”). As Patent Owner responds, the ITC “determined not to review the portions of the ID’s findings regarding the ’991 patent.” Paper 43, 4. And we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s argument that the Final Determination is subject to approval by the President lacks merit because the President did not act on the Final Determination within the period specified by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)(2). Id. at 4–5. The ID recounts evidence that has been considered and evaluated by an objective and disinterested judge, and articulates findings that are relevant to whether there is a sufficient nexus between the challenged claims and Patent Owner’s evidence regarding Petitioner’s products. The ID is also relevant to the issue of copying by Petitioner. Although Petitioner asserts that the ID is prejudicial or confusing, it provides insufficient argument to support those assertions. With respect to Exhibits 2010, 2012–2019, and 2021, Petitioner contends that these exhibits are Hytera advertising and marketing documents, which do not supply sales numbers or third-party praise to prove commercial success. Paper 40, 3–4. Again, this argument relates to the weight to be accorded to that evidence, not to its admissibility. As we note above, we agree with Petitioner that these factors impact the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence, and we have accounted for that impact. Finally, we deny Petitioner’s request that Exhibit 2020 should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402 because Patent Owner’s demonstrative slides in Exhibit 2020 rely on Exhibits 2010, 2012–2019, and 2021. As the Board reminded the parties in its Order granting oral argument, “[d]emonstrative exhibits are not evidence.” Paper 44, 3. Exhibit 2020 is merely a demonstrative and is not evidence.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,279,991 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,279,991
• Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · May 10, 2019 · PGR2018-00008 · APJ Michael W Kim · PGR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Supercell's rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 8, and 10–12 unpatentable under § 101 and claims 2–7 and 9 not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “Even assuming that the Board did overlook or misapprehend that the Petition articulated that “in a multi-player environment” was subsumed within “creating and applying a template of positions of one or more game contents,” we note that the aforementioned portion of the Petition also identifies, as additional details, “wherein a second player can also create and apply templates within the game space.” Neither the Petition nor the Request explains why these additional details should be considered a part of the claimed concept. Furthermore, delving into the merits of those latter additional details, we were, and continue to be, unpersuaded that a second player, that can both “create” and “apply” a template, is accounted for adequately in the Petition. Specifically, even if we were to agree the Petition accounts for a second player “applying” a template “in a multi-player environment” (see Req. 5, citing Pet. 6), the Petition makes no mention of the second player being able to also create the template. As discussed in the Final Written Decision, Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence or analysis that a second player able to also create and apply templates is included in the claimed concept of “creating and applying a template of positions of one or more game contents.” Final Dec. 43. We could not have overlooked or misapprehended something not presented adequately in the Petition.” slip op. at 5

  None
  Patents in suitUS 9,597,594
• Toyota Motor Corp. v. GE Hybrid Technologies, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · May 9, 2019 · IPR2019-00015 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing, leaving institution denied for claims 1–16 because the petition did not adequately explain why the prior art would be modified to meet the vehicle-control limitation.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. PRINCIPLES OF LAW A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “pertaining to a vehicle control unit. Pet. 20, 24; Ex. 1002 ¶ 55. The Petition and the Miller Declaration provide evidence that Sugimoto discloses control device 60, and that one skilled in the art would have considered Sugimoto’s control device 60 to be a vehicle control unit, as required by each of claims 1 and 5. Id. The Petition and the Miller Declaration also provide evidence that Sugimoto’s control device 60 controls a switch. Pet. 17–19; Ex. 1002 ¶ 50. Such evidence alone, however, does not provide sufficient reasoning, with adequate rational underpinnings, for modifying Fassnacht’s process to include a vehicle control unit that is allowed to turn on a first switch when the vehicle is below a first threshold temperature. Rather, as we explained in our Decision, “[t]he allegations in the Petition rely on an assumption that mere inclusion of a vehicle control unit as part of Fassnacht’s method would result in the claimed method.” Dec. 13 (citing Pet. 20, 22–24). Further, even though we did not specifically cite paragraphs 52–53, 61–62, and 103–109 of the Miller Declaration in our Decision, we did not overlook or misapprehend them. These paragraphs provide detailed explanations of how Sugimoto’s control device 60 could have been incorporated in to Fassnacht’s vehicle, but these descriptions also start from the assumption that merely including Sugimoto’s control unit 16 in Fassnacht’s process would have resulted in the claimed method. Neither the Petition nor the Miller Declaration explain why one skilled in the art would modify Fassnacht’s process to include the step of allowing the vehicle control unit to turn on a switch when such a step is unnecessary to Fassnact’s process. In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he mere capability of pulling the handles is not the inquiry that the Board should have made; it should have determined whether it would have been obvious to modify the prior art apparatus to arrive at the claimed rowing machine.”).” slip op. at 3

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

    “pertaining to a vehicle control unit. Pet. 20, 24; Ex. 1002 ¶ 55. The Petition and the Miller Declaration provide evidence that Sugimoto discloses control device 60, and that one skilled in the art would have considered Sugimoto’s control device 60 to be a vehicle control unit, as required by each of claims 1 and 5. Id. The Petition and the Miller Declaration also provide evidence that Sugimoto’s control device 60 controls a switch. Pet. 17–19; Ex. 1002 ¶ 50. Such evidence alone, however, does not provide sufficient reasoning, with adequate rational underpinnings, for modifying Fassnacht’s process to include a vehicle control unit that is allowed to turn on a first switch when the vehicle is below a first threshold temperature. Rather, as we explained in our Decision, “[t]he allegations in the Petition rely on an assumption that mere inclusion of a vehicle control unit as part of Fassnacht’s method would result in the claimed method.” Dec. 13 (citing Pet. 20, 22–24). Further, even though we did not specifically cite paragraphs 52–53, 61–62, and 103–109 of the Miller Declaration in our Decision, we did not overlook or misapprehend them. These paragraphs provide detailed explanations of how Sugimoto’s control device 60 could have been incorporated in to Fassnacht’s vehicle, but these descriptions also start from the assumption that merely including Sugimoto’s control unit 16 in Fassnacht’s process would have resulted in the claimed method. Neither the Petition nor the Miller Declaration explain why one skilled in the art would modify Fassnacht’s process to include the step of allowing the vehicle control unit to turn on a switch when such a step is unnecessary to Fassnact’s process. In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he mere capability of pulling the handles is not the inquiry that the Board should have made; it should have determined whether it would have been obvious to modify the prior art apparatus to arrive at the claimed rowing machine.”).” slip op. at 3

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,409,052

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.