• Apple Inc. v. Aire Technology LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2023 · IPR2022-01136 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 15 is unpatentable as obvious over Tobergte and Cole; claims 1–3 and 8–11 were not shown unpatentable because the references did not disclose claim 1’s search-signal limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Even a small amount of power that may be consumed by incorporating Cole into Tobergte likely exceeds the power consumed by Tobergte’s configuration in which the computer and oscillator are disconnected from power. Nevertheless, neither party provides a specific power consumption analysis. On this issue, we weigh Dr. Phinney’s testimony over Patent Owner’s attorney arguments and determine that Patent Owner has not sufficiently supported its contention that Cole teaches away from Tobergte on this basis. We determine that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Tobergte with those of Cole to provide a system that detects the presence of data carriers automatically without the need for the user to activate the data carrier with a switch.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Tobergte’s computer 38 and oscillator 34 are disconnected from energy source 40. Pet. Reply 14–15. Petitioner acknowledges that Tobergte improves upon prior art systems, in which the fixed station emits the high frequency magnetic field continuously, by emitting the high frequency magnetic field “only upon awakening from a low power rest state.” Petitioner points to the testimony of Dr. Phinney concluding that Cole’s presence detector is at a power level too low to fully power the data carrier, but sufficient to allow the data carrier to change the impedance of the field. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1003, Phinney Decl. ¶ 53, commenting on Ex. 1006, 6:1–8 cited by Patent Owner); id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:21–35). Even a small amount of power that may be consumed by incorporating Cole into Tobergte likely exceeds the power consumed by Tobergte’s configuration in which the computer and oscillator are disconnected from power. Nevertheless, neither party provides a specific power consumption analysis. On this issue, we weigh Dr. Phinney’s testimony over Patent Owner’s attorney arguments and determine that Patent Owner has not sufficiently supported its contention that Cole teaches away from Tobergte on this basis. We determine that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Tobergte with those of Cole to provide a system that detects the presence of data carriers automatically without the need for the user to activate the data carrier with a switch.” slip op. at 16

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

    “sufficient for the data carrier to switch to passive mode. Id. at 6:1−5. When the data carrier is switched into passive mode, the data carrier’s supply device generates the operating voltage for the electric circuit from the received high frequency energy. Id. at 6:5–9. Claim 1 of Tobergte does not suggest that the fixed station performs any search function. Instead, Tobergte’s fixed station receives both energy and data from the data carrier for the brief period that the data carrier is in the active mode. There is no indication that Tobergte’s fixed station is emitting signals to search for the data carrier. Instead, Tobergte claims a system in which the data carrier that “wakes up” the fixed station is then powered by the energy of the high frequency field transmitted by the fixed station. None of Tobergte’s other claims explicitly recites a search limitation. In other words, Tobergte describes and claims changing a conventional data carrier that transmits data only when interrogated (id. at 3:48−52) into a data carrier that begins transmitting energy and data first, when activated by a user (id. at 3:55−58, 3:65−67).” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Even a small amount of power that may be consumed by incorporating Cole into Tobergte likely exceeds the power consumed by Tobergte’s configuration in which the computer and oscillator are disconnected from power. Nevertheless, neither party provides a specific power consumption analysis. On this issue, we weigh Dr. Phinney’s testimony over Patent Owner’s attorney arguments and determine that Patent Owner has not sufficiently supported its contention that Cole teaches away from Tobergte on this basis. We determine that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Tobergte with those of Cole to provide a system that detects the presence of data carriers automatically without the need for the user to activate the data carrier with a switch.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,174,360 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,174,360
• Xilinx, Inc. / Xilinx Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Analog Devices, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2022 · IPR2020-01564 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–8 were not shown unpatentable; claim 12 was shown unpatentable as obvious over Elbornsson and Jamal, and over Eklund and Jamal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention “would have at least a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering or equivalent field, including studies in designing data converters, and two to five years of relevant experience; or a Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering or equivalent field.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1202 ¶¶ 17–18). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. See generally PO Resp. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation because it is consistent with the ’750 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “U.S.C. § 282(b) “including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then 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). Patent Owner contends that “random clock,” “offset sensing circuit,” and “sensing” a gain or offset signal need to be construed. PO Resp. 13–17. Petitioner contends that no construction of any term is necessary. Reply 2– 5. The contentions of the parties were addressed in our Final Written Decision for IPR2020-01483, which was mailed on the same day as this Decision. We decline to construe these terms for the reasons given in that Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Raychowdhury testifies that, in Jamal’s technique, “the input is de-correlated from the pseudo random chopping sequence.” Ex. 2206 ¶ 64. Then, inexplicably, Dr. Raychowdhury testifies that “Jamal is unambiguous that ‘C[m] is white, has zero mean, and is uncorrelated with the input signal.’” Id. at ¶ 69. Patent Owner does not explain nor even address Dr. Raychowdhury’s inconsistent testimony. Given the inconsistent positions taken by Patent Owner’s expert, and the lack of explanation from Patent Owner, we give no weight to Dr. Raychowdhury’s testimony.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Even were we to accept Petitioner’s contention, that a ‘“random clock’ can be satisfied by a 1-bit pseudo-random bit sequence,” (Pet. 36), Jamal discloses that the alleged random clock C[m] “is uncorrelated with the input signal.” Ex. 1205, 8. A chopping SHA multiplies the input signal and the uncorrelated random signal C[m], then provides a chopped analog signal to the ADC converter. Id. Petitioner has not persuasively shown that chopping an input signal with an uncorrelated random signal, then providing the chopped signal to a converter as disclosed by Jamal, describes “said random clock configured to decorrelate an input signal provided to said first converter from said random clock” as recited in claim 1. We find that claim 1 is not unpatentable based on Jamal. Because claims 2 and 4–6 depend from claim 1, we find that these claims are also not unpatentable based on Jamal.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,900,750 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,900,750
• Xilinx, Inc. / Xilinx Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Analog Devices, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2022 · IPR2020-01336 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Oliaei; claims 3, 5, 7, 10–17, and 29 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in its Response. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Peter Kinget, testifies that Petitioner’s proposed level of education and experience for a person of ordinary skill is reasonable. Ex. 2002 ¶ 9. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal because it is consistent with the ’463 patent and the asserted prior art and not disputed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 6

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

    “U.S.C. § 282(b) “including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).1 Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then 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). Petitioner contends it has construed all claim terms according to this standard, but does not propose any express constructions. See Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20, 22, 134–135). Patent Owner does not expressly address claim construction of any claim terms in its Response. See generally PO Resp. We determine that no formal constructions of any specific terms or words in the claim are necessary in this proceeding.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Overall, we find Dr. Holberg’s testimony particularly telling, and not very persuasive, with respect to combining Oliaei and Vittoz. Dr. Holberg makes clear that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have analyzed Oliaei’s circuit, and in particular any switches that were of concern, before implementing charge injection compensation circuitry. See, e.g., id. at 25:8– 26:22 (Dr. Holberg describing for a pacemaker amplifier circuit he designed “I definitely did a lot of analysis because I had to deal with the DC value, so I did a lot of analysis on the charge injection impact.”). Dr. Holberg did not, however, provide any technical analysis or circuit performance simulations in his original declaration showing that Oliaei would benefit from Vittoz’s charge injection compensation circuitry. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 200–218. Also, in his original Declaration, Dr. Holberg testified that “[a] POSITA could have combined the common-mode circuit and the common-mode feedback circuit of Oliaei with the impedance matching circuit of Vittoz using the known modeling methods disclosed by Vittoz.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 202 (citing Ex. 1012, 101–105, Fig. 7). The mere fact that the prior art reference could be modified does not satisfy the requirements for a finding of obviousness. Indeed, even if Vittoz’s charge injection circuit could be implemented in Oliaei’s CMFB circuit, and “a POSITA would recognize Vittoz’s balancing capacitors and dummy switches would operate in substantially the same way, whether in the system disclosed by Vittoz or the system disclosed by Oliaei,” as Dr. Holberg testifies, this does not explain persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added Vittoz’s charge injection circuitry into Oliaei’s CMFB circuit.” slip op. at 44

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

    “Considering all the evidence of record, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not asserted sufficient rationale for the combination of Oliaei and Vittoz. See PO Resp. 51–77; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 71–103. Petitioner alleges similarities between Oliaei and Vittoz and that the resulting combination, based on a desire to compensate for charge injection, would have predictably yielded the claimed system. Pet. 77–81. The arguments and evidence are deficient, however, for several reasons. First, as discussed above, we considered Petitioner’s assertion that a person of skill in the art would consider charge injection as a reason to look to Vittoz. Pet. 77. The evidence from both Dr. Holberg and Dr. Kinget is clear, however, that charge injection is not always necessary or compensated for in every switched capacitor circuit. See, e.g., Ex. 2003, 39:16–18 (Dr. Holberg stating that “I’m sure I’ve never put charge compensation circuitry on every switch. I’m sure of that.”). Second, Petitioner’s evidence including simulations of the combined Oliaei and Vittoz teachings, together with Patent Owner’s simulation evidence, illustrate that there are no clear-cut improvements in Oliaei’s circuit. The experts’ simulations, as a whole, show that by choosing particular parameters Oliaei’s circuit performance might be improved, and choosing other reasonable parameters would not improve circuit performance. With results of the simulations going both ways, the evidence is not persuasive that the combination would have yielded a predictable result. Third, the alleged rationale of adding charge injection compensation does not address sufficiently the reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the relevant teachings of Oliaei and Vittoz. Oliaei expressly discloses that the inventors undertook “numerous” simulations to address issues of clock-feedthrough glitches, i.e., charge injection, and that the results showed no impact of charge injection on system performance. Ex. 1007 5:17–32. Without sufficient explanation, Petitioner and Dr. Holberg have failed to present a persuasive rationale for the alleged combination.” slip op. at 49

  Patent outcomesUS 7,012,463 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,012,463
• EMC Corporation / Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2018 · IPR2017-00439 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–6, 8, 9, 13, 15–18, 20, and 21 are unpatentable over Carter; claims 5 and 17 are also obvious over Carter and Pitzel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Patent Owner regarding the ordinary meaning of the term “respectively.” Specifically, we understand that the word “respectively” can be an adverb that means “for each separately or in turn, and in the order mentioned.” The use of “respectively” as an adverb in the English language requires parallelism. See Ex. 3002. In other words, there must be a direct one-to-one correspondence and specific referents must be individually identified before there can be a “parallel list” of attribute values applicable to each, in that order. The term “respectively” also can be an attributive adjective that means “concerning or appropriate to each of several individually.” Id. In the present case, the term “respectively” appears to modify “the selected distributed devices.” Because specific referents are not individually identified, we understand the term to act as an attributive adjective modifying each of several selected distributed devices. Although we agree with Patent Owner regarding the use of the term “respectively,” we do not understand its use to require “the selected distributed devices to cause each selected distributed device to separately appear to network-connected user devices as a dedicated NAS device.” We cannot construe individual terms in isolation. Rather, we must consider claims as a whole in view of the specification. Specifically, we must consider the implications of other terms recited in claims 1 and 13 (e.g., “location information”) and how the claims are supported by the disclosed embodiments.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contests Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, specifically arguing that “Petitioners’ proposed requirements especially with regard to work experience, are higher than can be reasonably supported.” PO Resp. 5. Patent Owner notes that Petitioners’ declarant, Dr. Kubiatowicz, testified on cross-examination that “somebody coming directly out of college, likely, would need a couple of extra years to understand this,” and that “a little bit of professional experience might help them -- would help them understand the details involved in this case.” Id. (citing Ex. 2002, 25:13–14; 26:2–5). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Shenoy, testified that, “at the time of the ’827 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art should have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent, with 1–2 years of work experience in the field of computer networking, storage systems, or a related field.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 19. According to Dr. Shenoy, “[l]ack of experience can be remedied by additional education or vice versa.” Id. Based on our review of the ’827 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’827 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Dr. Kubiatowicz and Dr. Shenoy, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, specifically that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent, with 1–2 years of work experience in the field of computer networking, storage systems, or a related field.” See id. We also determine that such a person would have been familiar with computer systems architecture and design, and would have been aware of design trends relating to distributed processing systems.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Despite Patent Owner’s arguments, we find that Carter’s policy element 290 (a software module) is configured to assess unused or under-utilized storage resources in selected distributed devices of the plurality of distributed devices. We understand policy element 290 to satisfy this limitation because Carter specifically discloses that policy element 290 “acts as a controller to determine the availability of resources, such as printer capabilities, hard-disk space, available RAM and other such resources.” Ex. 1140, 36:27–29 (emphases added). We credit the testimony of Dr. Kubiatowicz, who during his deposition stated, “I would say this policy controller certainly can evaluate the hard disk space on the local node, but could also potentially evaluate storage throughout the system by communicating with other nodes.” Ex. 2002, 86:13–16; see id. at 88:5–7; see also id. at 88:12–16 (“What I said was that this policy element is determining the availability of resources. So it’s assessing whether or not hard disk space of various sorts is available. So it’s availability, not just available.”); see id. at 88:18–89:18, 90:5–91:1. We further credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Shenoy, who testified that Carter discloses “determin[ing] the free volume space available for allocation.” See Ex. 1144, 142:19–20 (referencing Ex. 1140, 19:14–17). Reading directly from Carter, Dr. Shenoy further testified that Carter discloses “request[ing] the total available space information and us[ing] this information to quickly determine whether to proceed with the allocation processing.” Id. at 142:14–17, 143:1617. In view of the explicit disclosure of Carter and the testimony of both declarants, we find that Carter’s controller performs an “assessment” in order to “determine the availability of resources.” Additionally, Carter states that policy controller 290 “can employ any of the suitable heuristics to direct the elements, such as the paging controller, disk directory manager, and other elements to dynamically distribute the available resources.” Ex. 1140, 36:29–37:2. Thus, we agree with Petitioner’s argument, as supported by the testimony of Dr. Kubiatowicz, that policy element 290 assesses the unused or underused storage resources when it determines the availability of such resources and uses some heuristics when distributing those resources that were assessed. See Pet 39 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 118). Accordingly, based on the entirety of the record before us, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Carter discloses the “assessing” limitations of claims 1 and 13.” slip op. at 31

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to offer sufficient explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Carter and Condor. Rather, Petitioner appears to argue that, based on the advantages described by Condor (Ex. 1017, 5), and using well-known techniques with unspecified predictable results, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient reason to combine these disparate elements taught in the prior art references to render the challenged claims obvious. Pet. 61–66. Yet, other than Petitioner’s cursory assertion of “advantageously incorporat[ing] the central coordinator in Condor to provide a centralized mechanism to manage resource sharing” (Pet. 66), which cites equally cursory and unsupported testimony by Dr. Kubiatowicz (Ex. 1102 ¶ 199), Petitioner fails to identify what particular advantages or efficiencies would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Condor’s scheduler with Carter’s system. Furthermore, Dr. Kubiatowicz’s testimony regarding predictable results and obviousness to try are similarly lacking in elaboration and substantiation. See Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 200–201. Such conclusory statements and unspecific testimony without evidence on the record cannot satisfy the Petitioner’s burden of demonstrating obviousness. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016); I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc., 576 F. App’x 982, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The testimony of the Defendants’ expert amounts to a ‘mere conclusory statement’ that may not serve as a basis for finding the asserted claims obvious.”); see also InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that expert’s testimony could not support a finding of obviousness where “testimony primarily consisted of conclusory references to [the expert’s] belief that one of ordinary skill in the art could combine these references, not that they would have been motivated to do so”); see also 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.”). Although Petitioner has not provided a sufficient rationale to combine in this asserted ground of unpatentability, Petitioner has otherwise demonstrated that claims 4, 6, 16, and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because they are anticipated by Carter. Petitioner, however, has not asserted claims 7 and 19 are unpatentable under any other ground in this proceeding. Therefore, we determine Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 7 and 19 of the ’827 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Carter and Condor.” slip op. at 59

  Patent outcomesUS 8,275,827 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,275,827
• Institut Straumann AG / Dental Wings Inc. v. Sirona Dental Systems GmbHSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2016 · IPR2015-01190 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were held unpatentable as obvious over Bannuscher and Truppe; claims 9–10 were not shown unpatentable; the motion to amend was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “interpretation of the language used in claim 1 and the additional limitations of dependent claims 9 and 10. Patent Owner’s proposed construction also impermissibly reads limitations from the preferred embodiment of Figure 5 into claim 1. Patent Owner would limit the pilot hole location exclusively to a position directly over the implant position and require the drill bit to pass through the pilot hole while drilling a bore hole into the patient’s jaw. The language recited in claim 1, in the context of the ’006 specification, does not so-limit the “determinating a pilot hole” step. First, Patent Owner fails to consider the present participle form “determinating”5 at the beginning of the recited method step at issue. As a result, Patent Owner conflates the recited device production step with a specific process for drilling a bore hole into a patient’s jaw during tooth implant surgery. PO Resp. 14–15. For example, Patent Owner relies on Dr. Erickson’s Declaration testimony (and Dr. Benjamin’s deposition testimony) for the proposition that “pilot hole” is a term of art referring to “an initial hole through which a pilot drill passes during an operation.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 37 (cited at PO Resp. 16–17); see also PO Resp. 16–17 (citing Ex. 2023, 24:3– 22, 25:18–27:2, 52:2–9). The ’006 patent does not describe or reference any such “pilot drill” or “initial hole” being made during a tooth implant operation. Regardless, the claim limitation at issue is a step in a method of producing a drill template. It recites defining a pilot hole in a drill template with reference to the surfaces of neighboring teeth, nothing more. The function of actually passing a drill through a pilot hole in a drill template” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner argues that the term “pseudo-x-ray picture” is not a term that has a commonly understood meaning to a POSA. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 45 [47]). Patent Owner does not comment on the construction of “pseudo-x-ray picture.” PO Resp. 15–19. Having reviewed the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s argument and evidence in support of Petitioner’s proposed broadest reasonable interpretation of “pseudo-x-ray picture.” Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed broadest reasonable interpretation of “pseudo-x-ray picture” as “any representation of measured data records of the three-dimensional optical measuring that can be superimposed on an x-ray image.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 49).” slip op. at 17

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

    “stylus is used to penetrate the surface of the gum repeatedly to measure the structure of the jaw bone displayed in Figure 25. PO Resp. 30–31 (citing Ex. 1007, 24:53–65 (“[S]tylus member 52 is provided with a sharp stylus 574 (FIG. 1) having a length sufficient[ly] long to penetrate gum tissue and contact the bone surface. . . . [P]ractitioner repeats the procedure of piercing the gum tissue in a region about the desired implantation site and taking point data until enough data has been collected . . . to map . . . the entire surface of bone 558 [Fig. 25] about the implantation site.”)). We agree with Patent Owner and find that the use of a sharp stylus to pierce the gum and take multiple data points via contact digitization of the jaw bone beneath the skin surface is not a 3-D optical measuring of the visible surfaces of a patient’s jaw.” slip op. at 21

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

    “would have been motivated to combine their teachings with respect to correlating X-ray imaging data of the jaw and 3-D surface data of the jaw and teeth. Reply 22–23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 89, 92; Ex. 1008, 1:10–11 (“precise planning of the surgical operation is necessary”); Ex. 1010, 5:19– 25 (“it is possible to carry out the entire implantological, treatment and operation planning on a scientific basis . . . to implement holistic planning results in a precisely clinical manner”)). More particularly, Bannuscher discloses the desire to obtain “all the necessary [clinical] parameters” relevant to pre-surgical implant planning, which can be “combined together” (“correlated” in the language of claim 1) using planning simulation software, for transfer to a drill template. Ex. 1010, 5:44–6:13, 6:24–40, 7:38–8:4. As Dr. Erickson testified, it would have been desirable for a POSA to have as much diagnostic information as possible when planning for dental implant surgery. Ex. 1029, 31:12–21. Truppe discloses the advantage of correlating three-dimensional X-ray imaging data of the jaw and optical imaging data of the jaw and teeth, using simulation software, to obtain a “vivid” representation. Ex. 1008, 2:7–16, 3:19–28, 3:56–58; 4:1–5. Truppe, therefore, discloses a similar process to that disclosed in Bannuscher with respect to correlating 3-D X-ray imaging data and 3-D optical data representing the surfaces of the jaw and teeth, to generate the best possible representation of the patient’s jaw and teeth. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 89–92. A POSA would have been motivated to use Truppe’s optical measurement system to generate 3-D surface data of the jaw and teeth for use in Bannuscher’s planning simulation software, in order to produce an enhanced image for determining the optimal bore hole and pilot hole in the drill template. Id.; Ex. 2023, 186:8–187:13 (“the optical imaging [of Truppe] would basically just enhance the diagnostic data [of Bannuscher]”). For example, a POSA would have optically measured the plaster model of the jaw and teeth referenced in Bannuscher and the patient’s actual jaw and teeth, as in Truppe, to produce a “vivid” image for correlation with the X-ray imaging data. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 89, 92.20 Bannuscher’s determination of the optimized bore hole and corresponding pilot hole in the drill template would be based on the enhanced imagery generated from the correlated 3-D data sets. In short, we are persuaded that a POSA would have had reason to incorporate the teaching of Truppe’s enhanced 3-D optical measurement technique into Bannuscher’s method for correlating 3–D X-ray image and model geometry data sets, to determine an optimal bore hole and corresponding pilot hole in the drill template. For the reasons given above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established a sufficient motivation for a POSA to combine the relevant teachings of Bannuscher and Truppe, with a reasonable expectation of success, by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 6,319,006 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,319,006
• Fca US LLC v. Signal IP, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 19, 2016 · IPR2015-01118 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 3 is unpatentable under § 103 over three instituted combinations; claims 1 and 2 were not shown unpatentable over Mock and Steele.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Signal. In particular, FCA cites Dr. Lall’s testimony on “experience in vehicle electronics” and “experience in the design of automobile components.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 17–19). In addition, Dr. Lall testified at his deposition that an ordinarily skilled artisan also would have had the general background tools provided by obtaining a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering, as defined by the standard curricula for those degrees. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 11:16–15:22. Dr. Lall also referenced his familiarity with these curricula based on his employment as a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Auburn University. See id. at 12:19–13:5; Ex. 1009 ¶ 4. Accordingly, we do not agree with Signal that Dr. Lall’s testimony as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for the ’374 patent is conclusory and/or lacking a factual basis. As such, we decline to discount the weight given to Dr. Lall’s testimony on that issue.6 Importantly, Signal never proposed an alternative definition of the ordinary level of skill in the art. See Tr. 48:17–25. As such, we have no indication from Signal about what particular aspects of FCA’s definition Signal believes are incorrect, if any. FCA’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill comports with the qualifications a person would need to understand and implement the teachings of the ’374 patent and the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Signal. In particular, FCA cites Dr. Lall’s testimony on “experience in vehicle electronics” and “experience in the design of automobile components.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 17–19). In addition, Dr. Lall testified at his deposition that an ordinarily skilled artisan also would have had the general background tools provided by obtaining a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering, as defined by the standard curricula for those degrees. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 11:16–15:22. Dr. Lall also referenced his familiarity with these curricula based on his employment as a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Auburn University. See id. at 12:19–13:5; Ex. 1009 ¶ 4. Accordingly, we do not agree with Signal that Dr. Lall’s testimony as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for the ’374 patent is conclusory and/or lacking a factual basis. As such, we decline to discount the weight given to Dr. Lall’s testimony on that issue.6” slip op. at 16

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

    “We are persuaded by Signal’s arguments. “Distinctive” ordinarily means “characteristic of one person or thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others.” Distinctive, NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY (1st ed. 2001) (Ex. 3001). Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the limitation “distinctive codes for tire transmitters and vehicle function transmitters” must reflect that the recited codes distinguish tire transmitters from vehicle function transmitters. This is consistent with the surrounding language of claim 1, which recites different actions taken depending on whether the transmitted data contains “a distinctive code for tire transmitters” or “a distinctive code for the vehicle function transmitters.” This usage within the claim is important because “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. In particular, “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Id. We also note that FCA’s proposed interpretation would read out language from the claim. Under FCA’s theory, the claim does not require the codes to distinguish between tire transmitters and vehicle function transmitters, and encompasses codes that are merely distinct from each other. In effect, FCA would have us read the limitation as “the remote transmitters all having the same data format but distinctive codes.” The claim does not stop there, however. The full limitation is “the remote transmitters all having the same data format but distinctive codes for tire transmitters and vehicle function transmitters” (emphasis added). Thus, the codes are distinctive “for” tire transmitters and vehicle function transmitters, and the processor performs different actions depending on whether the transmitted data contains “a distinctive code for tire transmitters” versus “a distinctive code for vehicle function transmitters.” FCA’s proposed interpretation would read out this important aspect of the claim. Interpreting the claim to require the codes to distinguish between the two types of transmitters also is consistent with the Specification. We agree with Signal that the usage of “distinctive codes” in claim 1 is supported by the Specification’s disclosure of an exemplary message format with a “header” that “identif[ies] the source as a tire sender or a keyless entry fob.” Ex. 1001, 4:51–55, Fig. 4. Importantly, the header is separate and distinct from the “unique transmitter identification code,” an identifier unique to each transmitter that corresponds to the “ID” block in Figure 4. Id. at 4:55– 56, Fig. 4. In other words, the Header distinguishes types of transmitters (i.e., a tire sender or keyless entry fob) by their function or category, whereas the ID uniquely identifies a particular transmitter and distinguishes it from the others. An exemplary use of the ID block is illustrated with respect to step 94 of Figure 7, and it serves to show the different uses of the Header and the ID: After a message is determined to be a tire pressure message via category identification at step 78, a low pressure warning may be displayed “for the particular tire position which sent the message as determined by the identification code incorporated in the transmission,” among other things. Id. at 5:20–23, 5:32–44, Fig. 7.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We are not persuaded by Signal’s arguments because we do not agree with Signal that Schuermann’s separate interrogation implies that a sign-up procedure is unnecessary. Rather, Schuermann is silent as to whether and how a sign-up procedure would be used, so FCA is correct that Schuermann “leaves it to persons of ordinary skill in the art to use known techniques for accomplishing transponder sign-up.” Pet. Reply 4. As such, we are persuaded by FCA’s rationale that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reason to incorporate Mock’s sign-up procedure to ensure reliable identification of tire transmitters. See Pet. 29–30; Ex. 1009 ¶ 35. We additionally agree with FCA that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have appreciated the benefits of adding Mock’s sign-up procedure based on the cost reductions Mock mentions that are associated with a changeable identification code at the tire transmitter. Ex. 1005, 4:47–51. Signal’s counsel conceded that Mock teaches this benefit at the oral hearing. Tr. 38:4–25.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 5,463,374 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,463,374
• Google, Inc. v. Personal Audio LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2016 · IPR2015-00846 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 7,509,178 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,509,178
• Daifuku Co., Ltd. / Daifuku America Corp. v. Murata Machinery, Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 3, 2016 · IPR2015-00083 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11–15, 17, and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by JPAP ’213; claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over JPAP ’213 and JPAP ’237.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In our Institution Decision, we construed the “translating stage is configured to vertically move the gripper portion” limitation as follows: Claim 1 merely requires a translating stage configured to vertically move the gripper to a position near (“proximate”) one of two locations, a load port and a storage location. The translating stage need not be configured to move the gripper to a location proximate both because the claim uses the phrase “at least one of” those two locations. Dec. on Inst. 12. After further development of the record and consideration of the arguments presented and evidence relied upon by both parties, we determine that the above construction is appropriate with respect to this Final Written Decision. Accordingly, we construe “at least one of [a] and [b]” to mean “at least one of the listed items but not necessarily both.”” slip op. at 15

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

    “construction for the “at least one of” phrase, “there is no anticipation because JPAP ’213 cannot move the gripper proximate to the claimed positions.” PO Resp. 22. This argument is not persuasive because, for the reasons set forth above, the properly construed claims are not as narrow as Patent Owner proposes. See Section II.A. Even were we to conclude that Patent Owner’s proposed construction, where “at least one of” modifies both “[a]” and “[b],” Patent Owner’s arguments are not on point. Claim 1, for example, recites “the translating stage is configured to vertically move the gripper portion . . . to at least one of a second position proximate to a load port [beneath the rail] and a third position proximate to a storage location [disposed lateral to the rail].” There is no dispute that the system of JPAP ’213 is capable of moving to a location proximate a location under the rail. As to the storage location, it is not readily apparent how the above-quoted claim language requires, as Patent Owner argues, a vehicle “capable of moving the gripper/hoist mechanism laterally.” PO Resp. 23; see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 102 (Dr. Bottom’s offering the conclusory opinion that “[A] vehicle capable of moving the gripper to a position proximate to the storage location/conveyer lateral to the overhead rail must be capable of moving the gripper/hoist mechanism laterally.”). A vertically-moving system would be configured to move a gripper proximate (near, next to) an adjacent storage location even if lacking the ability to move laterally so as to place a unit on a storage shelf. Cf. Dec. on Inst. 12 (indicating our understanding of “proximate” as meaning “near”); see, e.g., Ex. 1003, col. 8, ll. 12–16 (“[The overhead hoist transport vehicle is moved along a track, as depicted in step 904, to a position adjacent the selected storage bin.”), and Figs. 3, 5b. Accordingly, we find the system of JPAP ’213 has the capability of moving to a position proximate a laterally disposed storage location as well as a positon beneath the rail. Ex. 1005, 20 (Fig. 1). Based on the argument and evidence presented in the Petition, and the insufficiency of the responsive argument and evidence presented in the Patent Owner Response, as discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11–15, 17 and 20 are anticipated by JPAP ’213.” slip op. at 19

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

    “paragraph 7 as providing the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the lateral transfer device from the conveyance truck of JPAP ’237 to moving body 3 in JPAP ’213 Figure 1. Dr. Sturges, moreover, does not provide a reasoned analysis based on the disclosures and embodiments of JPAP ’213 and JPAP ’237, in the context of the knowledge and skill level of a degreed engineer with 3–5 years of experience developing automated material handling systems. Dr. Sturges does not explain why and how one of ordinary skill would have selected the lateral transfer device from the conveyance truck of JPAP ’237 for use with moving body 3 in JPAP ’213 Figure 1. Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 162–165. For example, there is no explanation of why one of ordinary skill would use the lateral transfer device from JPAP ’237, given that mechanically moveable storage tables already are used to effect lateral transfer of articles B on both sides of moving body 3 in JPAP ’213 Figure 1. See id. Even if the proposed modification were to be made, Dr. Sturges does not account for counterweight 51 in JPAP ’237, which extends laterally to the opposite side of extendable arm 42, or explain why the counterweight would not interfere with the articles and storage tables located on the opposite side of moving body 3 in JPAP ’213 Figure 1. Id.; see also Mot. Observ. 4–5 (quoting Ex. 2041, 70:22–71:15 (“Q. [Y]ou did not provide any testimony that the hoist vehicle of the JPAP ’213 reference can utilize the robotic arm on one side while maintaining the swinging shelves on the other side; correct? A. That’s correct.”)). To the extent Petitioner argues that Dr. Sturges has provided evidence on this point (Tr. 83:9–13), such evidence has not been cited in the Petition or the Reply, nor have we located such evidence. Pet. 48–58 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 57, 157– 196); Reply 12–13 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 162–65, and 169); Mot. Observ., 2–3 (quoting Ex. 2041, 71:23–72:9 (“Q. [Y]ou did not address whether it would have been necessary to change the functional relationship between the swinging shelf and the hoist vehicle of the JPAP ’213 reference; correct? A. That’s accurate.”)).10” slip op. at 32

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “D. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibit 1038 and ¶¶ 3–4 of Exhibit 1040 filed by Petitioner with Petitioner’s Reply. Mot. Excl. 1 (Paper 47). Petitioner opposes the motion to exclude. Pet. Excl. Opp. 4–14 (Paper 56). Exhibit 1038 is a confidential product development plan dated September 25, 2002, and produced by Petitioner in this proceeding. Exhibit 1040 is a Second Declaration of Dr. Sturges, and paragraphs 3–4 contain his testimony explaining aspects of the confidential product development plan of Exhibit 1038. Petitioner relies on Exhibit 1038 and paragraphs 3–4 of Exhibit 1040 to rebut Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner copied Patent Owner’s invention claimed in the ’172 patent. Reply 20, 22, and 25. Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibit 1038 and paragraphs 3–4 of Exhibit 1040 as irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402), inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. 11 In view of our determination, we need not consider Patent Owner’s objective evidence of nonobviousness. See Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“objective evidence of nonobviousness . . . may be sufficient to disprove or rebut a prima facie case of obviousness”). PO Resp. 46–60; see also Reply 18–25. Evid. 801(c)), and unauthenticated (Fed. R. Evid. 901). Mot. Excl. 1–8. We do not rely on or address Patent Owner’s asserted objective evidence of nonobviousness or Petitioner’s rebuttal evidence in our Decision. Therefore, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibits 1038 and paragraphs 3–4 of Exhibit 1040 is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 8,197,172 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,197,172
• Apple Inc. v. THX Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00235 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over Tomonori and Sadaie; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable over Tomonori, Virva, and Sadaie.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In sum, the ’483 patent describes and claims a sound reflecting surface that redirects sound waves output from the speaker towards the elongate output slot, whereas sound damping material absorbs standing waves inside the sound duct. The ’483 patent goes to great lengths to distinguish a sound reflecting surface from a sound damping surface. Furthermore, given that “sound damping material” is different from a “sound reflecting surface” and both are recited as separate claim limitations, it follows that a sound reflecting surface is not made of sound damping material. For the reasons given above, we construe “sound reflecting surface,” in the context of claim 1 and in light of the ’483 patent specification, as “a surface that redirects sound waves output from a speaker, not made of sound damping material.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “2. Other Terms Petitioner proposes to construe additional claim terms. Pet. 11–14. We determine that no express construction of these additional terms is necessary for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “suppress standing waves inside a duct. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112). Dr. Vipperman identifies the reason for Sadaie’s use of side wall sound damping as enabling “the sharpness of a fundamental wave resonance of a standing wave determined by the length of the sound path . . . to be suppressed because a substantial length of the sound path cannot be primarily determined.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 112 (citing Ex. 1003, 14). We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning, therefore, that “[e]xtending the damping material of Tomonori along the sidewalls of the duct,” as taught by Sadaie, would have been one of a limited number of known solutions further minimizing the presence of spurious resonances and standing waves inside the duct. Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 113). The quoted statements of Petitioner and Dr. Vipperman with respect to Tomonori and Sadaie are consistent with the principles set forth in KSR.10 Petitioner and Dr. Vipperman provide an analysis of why one of ordinary skill in the art of speaker design would have been motivated by Sadaie’s disclosure of side wall sound damping to modify Tomonori’s narrow sound duct, such that sound damping material forms the sides of the sound duct but not the bottom (sound reflecting) surface. In particular, Dr. Vipperman’s Declaration provides a sufficient analysis to support the obvious modification of Tomonori’s narrow profile speaker, by a speaker designer of ordinary skill, such that “sound damping material form[s] sides of the sound duct” to help suppress the presence of spurious resonances and standing waves inside the duct. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112, 113.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,433,483 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,433,483

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.