• Elekta, Inc. v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 5, 2017 · IPR2016-00315 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–9 were not shown unpatentable under either §103 ground because the references did not disclose the claimed second logic; claims 13 and 18 were canceled by motion.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Although a claim term that does not include the word “means” is presumed not to invoke a means-plus-function analysis, that presumption may be overcome if the limitation does not “recite sufficiently definite structure” or recites a “function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 2 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) redesignated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Pub. L. No. 112- 29, 125 Stat. 284, 296 (2011). Because the ’703 patent has a filing date before September 16, 2012 (effective date of § 4(c)), we refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112. 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner’s expert, Russell J. Hamilton, Ph.D., testifies that “the term ‘logic’ would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as providing sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed functions,” and that “[l]ogic can be implemented in software, in hardware, and in combinations of hardware and software.” Ex. 1021 ¶ 122. The parties provide sufficient reasoning to overcome the presumption against a means-plus-function construction, and we accordingly construe “first logic” and “second logic” in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 9

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

    “untenable because its broad identification only of “computer software and/or computer hardware” as structure for performing the recited function is too generic. The law regarding construction of means-plus-function limitations as applied to computer-implemented elements is well-established: For computer-implemented means-plus-function claims where the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to implement an algorithm, “the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.” . . . This court permits a patentee to express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, . . . , or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure. Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Patent Owner’s proposed construction is superior because it identifies the algorithm through explicit reference to the flow chart of Figure 4 and related disclosure in the Specification. Patent Owner’s position is supported by testimony of its expert, Sasa Mutic, Ph.D., who refers to those disclosures in opining that “the [’703] patent describes a process of steps for obtaining the result of properly positioning a patient to begin a treatment” and that “Fig. 4 of the [’703] patent provides a flowchart of a process for use of an embodiment of the invention.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 69.” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner contends that the claims canceled in IPR2016-00341 “were directed to methods that recited the function performed by the second logic,” and that “Patent Owner is now estopped from arguing the subject matter of the same scope is patentable.” Pet. Reply 315, 1. Petitioner cites no authority to support this position, which improperly focuses on only one limitation of the claims, divorced from the claims’ other limitations. We reject Petitioner’s contention because the method claims canceled in IPR2016-00341 do not constitute “subject matter of the same scope” as the apparatus claims challenged in these proceedings.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “skill in the art relevant to the ’703 patent “would be a person with a graduate degree (MS or PhD) in medical physics or a related field (e.g. Physics, Engineering) and three years of experience in radiation oncology beyond the completion date of their degree.” Ex. 1021 ¶ 17. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Mutic, expresses a level of ordinary skill that is generally similar to Petitioner’s expert, but accounts for the possibility of a medical education instead of a medical-physics education: [A] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would be a medical physicist with a Ph.D. (or similar advanced degree) in physics, medical physics, or a related field, and two or more years of experience in radiation oncology physics and image processing/computer programming related to radiation oncology applications. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art might have an M.D. degree in the same relevant fields and two or more years of practical experience with image processing and the use of computer systems that is related to medical applications. Ex. 2012 ¶ 36. The similarity in the experts’ opinions is reinforced by Dr. Mutic’s assertion that he has “considered Dr. Hamilton’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and determined that it does not differ from [his] own expressions of this concept in any way that is relevant to the opinions” he expresses in his Declaration. Id. ¶ 38. Based on the expert testimony in the record, we agree with and adopt the level of skill expressed by Dr. Hamilton.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,867,703 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,867,703
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2017 · IPR2016-00956 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 3–7, 9, 12–16, 18–23, 29, and 35 not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach dynamically building a parse tree while receiving incoming code.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “We have considered these constructions in light of the full trial record. We see no compelling reason to alter these constructions in light of the parties’ 4 We repeat our observation from the Institution Decision that claim 9 recites “detecting any one of a plurality of programming languages in which the incoming stream is written” (emphasis added), but requires instantiating the scanner “in response to said determining” (emphasis added), without apparent antecedent basis. We consider “said determining” in claim 9 as intended to refer to the previously recited “detecting,” in parallel with the structure of claims 1 and 22. Dec. 11 n.4. positions as developed during the trial, and we therefore adopt them for this Final Written Decision. See PO Resp. 12–13 (“Although Patent Owner maintains that the terms ‘dynamically building’ and ‘dynamically detecting’ do not require construction, it does not contest these constructions for purposes of this proceeding, and they are, therefore, controlling.”); Reply 3 (noting Patent Owner does not contest the preliminary constructions of “dynamically building” and “dynamically detecting”).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “2. Level of Skill in the Art Based on its expert’s testimony, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have held a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent in computer science or related academic fields, and three to four years of additional experience in the field of computer security, or equivalent work experience. Pet. 2001, 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention, and its expert’s opinion on the level of ordinary skill is generally similar to that of Petitioner’s expert, differing only by about a year in minimum work experience and suggesting an advanced degree as a substitute for work experience. See Ex. 2007 ¶ 37. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic, asserts that the opinions stated in his Declaration “would be the same if rendered from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art set out by [Petitioner’s expert,] Dr. Rubin.” Id. at ¶ 40. Based on the expert testimony in the record, we agree with and adopt the level of skill advocated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered the opinions of both experts and the underlying bases for those opinions. In light of specific disclosures in Chandnani, we conclude that Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic, articulates the more compelling position. Of particular relevance is the following disclosure from Chandnani: The script language virus detection methodologies described herein may be performed by a computer in one or a combination of the following circumstances. The script language virus detection methodologies may be performed periodically (e.g., once/twice per day) or at selected times (e.g., each time the computer is powered up or restarted) by the computer on all relevant electronic files. In addition, the script language virus detection methodologies may be performed on a file (or a data stream received by the computer through a network) before the file is stored/copied/executed/opened on the computer. Ex. 1003, col. 9, ll. 6–16 (emphasis added). In considering this passage, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Rubin, makes the conclusory statement that “[t]hus, under [Patent Owner’s] own interpretation of the claim language, the Chandnani+Kolawa combination teaches the ‘dynamically building’ limitation.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 167. We accord such a conclusory assertion little weight. See Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1335, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness).” slip op. at 18

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

    “Consequently, Dr. Medvidovic opines, and we agree, that “simply because Chandnani’s tokenizer operates on a data stream does not demand or even imply that the data stream is being received while being tokenized.” Id. As Patent Owner contends, because Chandnani discloses that operation of the tokenizer “only occurs on the second pass through the data stream, . . . the data stream must have already been received before the stream of tokens is generated.” PO Resp. 21. “[W]hile it is conceivable (though not explicitly disclosed) that a data stream might be ‘incoming’ while Chandnani uses the ‘language check data to select the language definition data to use for the detection process,’ it is not possible for the data stream to still be ‘incoming’ when the data stream ‘is lexically analyzed again, this time using the language definition data, to generate a stream of tokens.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, col. 8, ll. 4–17; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 73–74).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,225,408 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,225,408
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2017 · IPR2016-00955 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 12–16, 18–23, 29, and 35 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness combinations because the art did not teach dynamically building a parse tree while receiving the incoming stream.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “The dispositive issue is whether Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Chandnani and Kolawa teaches or suggests “dynamically building” a parse tree “while” receiving an incoming stream of program code. Although the specific language differs in immaterial respects by reciting or omitting the structural elements of a “computer” or a “receiver,” such a limitation appears in each of independent claims 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, and 35 through a combination of recitations that include receipt of the incoming stream of programming code and “dynamically building” the parse tree “while” receiving the incoming stream. Petitioner contends that all limitations of independent claims 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, and 35 are taught by Chandnani “except for the use of a parse tree to store and analyze programming code,” and that “[i]t would have been obvious to combine Chandnani’s scanner with the parse-tree teachings of Kolawa” to meet the full set of limitations of each independent claim. Pet. 2001, 19–20. Although the parties agree that Chandnani describes lexical analysis of a “data stream” to generate a stream of tokens, they disagree whether Chandnani discloses that such lexical analysis occurs while receiving the incoming data stream, as recited in each of the independent claims. That is, the parties disagree whether Chandnani discloses a time period for generation of the token stream that overlaps a time period during which the incoming stream is received, as required by our construction of “dynamically building.”” slip op. at 16

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

    “The dispositive issue is whether Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Chandnani and Kolawa teaches or suggests “dynamically building” a parse tree “while” receiving an incoming stream of program code. Although the specific language differs in immaterial respects by reciting or omitting the structural elements of a “computer” or a “receiver,” such a limitation appears in each of independent claims 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, and 35 through a combination of recitations that include receipt of the incoming stream of programming code and “dynamically building” the parse tree “while” receiving the incoming stream. Petitioner contends that all limitations of independent claims 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, and 35 are taught by Chandnani “except for the use of a parse tree to store and analyze programming code,” and that “[i]t would have been obvious to combine Chandnani’s scanner with the parse-tree teachings of Kolawa” to meet the full set of limitations of each independent claim. Pet. 2001, 19–20. Although the parties agree that Chandnani describes lexical analysis of a “data stream” to generate a stream of tokens, they disagree whether Chandnani discloses that such lexical analysis occurs while receiving the incoming data stream, as recited in each of the independent claims. That is, the parties disagree whether Chandnani discloses a time period for generation of the token stream that overlaps a time period during which the incoming stream is received, as required by our construction of “dynamically building.”” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered the opinions of both experts and the underlying bases for those opinions. In light of specific disclosures in Chandnani, we conclude that Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic, articulates the more compelling position. Of particular relevance is the following disclosure from Chandnani: The script language virus detection methodologies described herein may be performed by a computer in one or a combination of the following circumstances. The script language virus detection methodologies may be performed periodically (e.g., once/twice per day) or at selected times (e.g., each time the computer is powered up or restarted) by the computer on all relevant electronic files. In addition, the script language virus detection methodologies may be performed on a file (or a data stream received by the computer through a network) before the file is stored/copied/executed/opened on the computer. Ex. 1003, col. 9, ll. 6–16 (emphasis added). In considering this passage, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Rubin, makes the conclusory statement that “[t]hus, under [Patent Owner’s] own interpretation of the claim language, the Chandnani+Kolawa combination teaches the ‘dynamically building’ limitation.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 167. We accord such a conclusory assertion little weight. See Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1335, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness).” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “2. Level of Skill in the Art Based on its expert’s testimony, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have held a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent in computer science or related academic fields, and three to four years of additional experience in the field of computer security, or equivalent work experience. Pet. 2001, 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention, and its expert’s opinion on the level of ordinary skill is generally similar to that of Petitioner’s expert, differing only by about a year in minimum work experience and suggesting an advanced degree as a substitute for work experience. See Ex. 2007 ¶ 37. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic, asserts that the opinions stated in his Declaration “would be the same if rendered from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art set out by [Petitioner’s expert,] Dr. Rubin.” Id. at ¶ 40. Based on the expert testimony in the record, we agree with and adopt the level of skill advocated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,225,408 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,225,408
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2017 · IPR2016-00157 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 3–7, 9, 12–16, 18–23, 29, and 35 not shown unpatentable under the instituted §103 grounds because the art did not teach dynamically building a parse tree while receiving the code …

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The dispositive issue is whether Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Chandnani and Kolawa teaches or suggests “dynamically building” a parse tree “while” receiving an incoming stream of program code. Although the specific language differs in immaterial respects by reciting or omitting the structural elements of a “computer” or a “receiver,” such a limitation appears in each of independent claims 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, and 35 through a combination of recitations that include receipt of the incoming stream of programming code and “dynamically building” the parse tree “while” receiving the incoming stream. Petitioner contends that all limitations of independent claims 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, and 35 are taught by Chandnani “except for the use of a parse tree to store and analyze programming code,” and that “[i]t would have been obvious to combine Chandnani’s scanner with the parse-tree teachings of Kolawa” to meet the full set of limitations of each independent claim. Pet. 2001, 19–20. Although the parties agree that Chandnani describes lexical analysis of a “data stream” to generate a stream of tokens, they disagree whether Chandnani discloses that such lexical analysis occurs while receiving the incoming data stream, as recited in each of the independent claims. That is, the parties disagree whether Chandnani discloses a time period for generation of the token stream that overlaps a time period during which the incoming stream is received, as required by our construction of “dynamically building.”” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “We have considered the opinions of both experts and the underlying bases for those opinions. In light of specific disclosures in Chandnani, we conclude that Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic, articulates the more compelling position. Of particular relevance is the following disclosure from Chandnani: The script language virus detection methodologies described herein may be performed by a computer in one or a combination of the following circumstances. The script language virus detection methodologies may be performed periodically (e.g., once/twice per day) or at selected times (e.g., each time the computer is powered up or restarted) by the computer on all relevant electronic files. In addition, the script language virus detection methodologies may be performed on a file (or a data stream received by the computer through a network) before the file is stored/copied/executed/opened on the computer. Ex. 1003, col. 9, ll. 6–16 (emphasis added). In considering this passage, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Rubin, makes the conclusory statement that “[t]hus, under [Patent Owner’s] own interpretation of the claim language, the Chandnani+Kolawa combination teaches the ‘dynamically building’ limitation.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 167. We accord such a conclusory assertion little weight. See Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1335, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness).” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “2. Level of Skill in the Art Based on its expert’s testimony, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have held a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent in computer science or related academic fields, and three to four years of additional experience in the field of computer security, or equivalent work experience. Pet. 2001, 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention, and its expert’s opinion on the level of ordinary skill is generally similar to that of Petitioner’s expert, differing only by about a year in minimum work experience and suggesting an advanced degree as a substitute for work experience. See Ex. 2007 ¶ 37. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic, asserts that the opinions stated in his Declaration “would be the same if rendered from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art set out by [Petitioner’s expert,] Dr. Rubin.” Id. at ¶ 40. Based on the expert testimony in the record, we agree with and adopt the level of skill advocated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “At the oral hearing, we expressed surprise that a party would seek to exclude the cross-examination testimony of its own expert witness. See Tr. 49:19–52:8. Patent Owner’s counsel explained that it “provided a motion to exclude based on the way that the evidence was used in the reply.” Tr. 50:1–6. But the Board has previously explained that “neither a motion to strike nor a motion to exclude is a proper mechanism to present argument that a reply contains new arguments.” Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc., Case IPR2013-00288, Paper 38 at 2 (PTAB May 23, 2014). Rather, an evaluation of the propriety of, and weight to be accorded to, arguments made in a reply is left to the determination of the Board, with parties afforded various opportunities to provide context for the evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.23, 42.65. We, therefore, consider Patent Owner’s arguments as going to the weight that should be given to the cross-examination testimony and related deposition exhibit, not to the admissibility of that evidence. 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 indicated above, we have considered and weighed the testimony provided by Dr. Medvidovic and have not relied on the testimony of Dr. Bims in reaching our decision. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,225,408 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,225,408
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2017 · IPR2015-02001 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 12–16, 18–23, 29, and 35 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach dynamically building a parse tree while receiving code.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered the opinions of both experts and the underlying bases for those opinions. In light of specific disclosures in Chandnani, we conclude that Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic, articulates the more compelling position. Of particular relevance is the following disclosure from Chandnani: The script language virus detection methodologies described herein may be performed by a computer in one or a combination of the following circumstances. The script language virus detection methodologies may be performed periodically (e.g., once/twice per day) or at selected times (e.g., each time the computer is powered up or restarted) by the computer on all relevant electronic files. In addition, the script language virus detection methodologies may be performed on a file (or a data stream received by the computer through a network) before the file is stored/copied/executed/opened on the computer. Ex. 1003, col. 9, ll. 6–16 (emphasis added). In considering this passage, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Rubin, makes the conclusory statement that “[t]hus, under [Patent Owner’s] own interpretation of the claim language, the Chandnani+Kolawa combination teaches the ‘dynamically building’ limitation.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 167. We accord such a conclusory assertion little weight. See Verlander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1335, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Board has discretion to accord little weight to broad conclusory statements from expert witness).” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “2. Level of Skill in the Art Based on its expert’s testimony, Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have held a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent in computer science or related academic fields, and three to four years of additional experience in the field of computer security, or equivalent work experience. Pet. 2001, 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention, and its expert’s opinion on the level of ordinary skill is generally similar to that of Petitioner’s expert, differing only by about a year in minimum work experience and suggesting an advanced degree as a substitute for work experience. See Ex. 2007 ¶ 37. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic, asserts that the opinions stated in his Declaration “would be the same if rendered from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art set out by [Petitioner’s expert,] Dr. Rubin.” Id. at ¶ 40. Based on the expert testimony in the record, we agree with and adopt the level of skill advocated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The dispositive issue is whether Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Chandnani and Kolawa teaches or suggests “dynamically building” a parse tree “while” receiving an incoming stream of program code. Although the specific language differs in immaterial respects by reciting or omitting the structural elements of a “computer” or a “receiver,” such a limitation appears in each of independent claims 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, and 35 through a combination of recitations that include receipt of the incoming stream of programming code and “dynamically building” the parse tree “while” receiving the incoming stream. Petitioner contends that all limitations of independent claims 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, and 35 are taught by Chandnani “except for the use of a parse tree to store and analyze programming code,” and that “[i]t would have been obvious to combine Chandnani’s scanner with the parse-tree teachings of Kolawa” to meet the full set of limitations of each independent claim. Pet. 2001, 19–20. Although the parties agree that Chandnani describes lexical analysis of a “data stream” to generate a stream of tokens, they disagree whether Chandnani discloses that such lexical analysis occurs while receiving the incoming data stream, as recited in each of the independent claims. That is, the parties disagree whether Chandnani discloses a time period for generation of the token stream that overlaps a time period during which the incoming stream is received, as required by our construction of “dynamically building.”” slip op. at 16

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

    “5. Conclusion Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of challenged claims 1, 9, 22, 23, 29, or 35 would have been obvious over the combination of Chandnani and Kolawa, or would have been obvious over that combination in further combination with Walls. Because the challenges of the dependent claims suffer from the same deficiencies, we further conclude that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that those dependent claims would have been obvious over the combinations of art it presents. Because we determine that the art does not disclose “dynamically building” a parse tree “while” receiving an incoming stream of program code, we need not consider whether a further conclusion of nonobviousness is warranted because of evidence of secondary considerations.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,225,408 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,225,408
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Blue Coat Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2017 · IPR2016-00480 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14 and 19 were not shown unpatentable because neither Shin nor Poison Java and Brown teaches executable code received at the destination without modification.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “according to the entire disclosure of the ’633 patent specification the executable code is received at the destination without modification. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,” and “acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.”). “The specification may define claim terms ‘by implication’ such that the meaning may be ‘found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.’” Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed.Cir.2001) (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582, 1584 n. 6). We also confirm the scope of the “executable code” in light of the advantage of the invention, e.g., to protect against malicious code without modifying the executable code, thereby minimizing resources. See Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing a ring as permanently attached to the cover because all embodiments read together suggest this relationship and the specification describes the advantages of the unitary structure). Although the specification describes additional advantages, such as not requiring pre-installation of security code within the destination, the claims need not encompass all stated advantages. See Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[P]atentees [are] not required to include within each of their claims all of [the] advantages or features described as significant or important in the written description.”). Finally, all the embodiments are consistent with and support the inventors’ characterization of the problem solved: avoiding the resource intensive modification by communicating to the destination the mobile protection code and the detected executable code. See Ex. 1001, 10:39−45; 1:63−3:6; see also O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (relying on the consistent disclosure of structures as being either non-smooth or conical and the statements distinguishing prior art where structures were smooth). In light of the disclosure, the plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed claim language emerges: the executable code whose operations are processed by the mobile protection code at the destination is the same as the executable code received, i.e., it undergoes no modification. In sum, we determine that the “executable code” at the destination is not modified.” slip op. at 17

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

    “research at Stanford, and archived by archive.org, shows that the article’s title was listed and that the article was publicly available through the Internet as of April 14, 1998. Ex. 1095. As explained in the affidavit proffered by Christopher Butler, Office Manager of Internet Archive, the URL format for captured website, “19980418130342/http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~ishin/research.html,” establishes that the website posting the abstract and the title of the article with a link to the article itself were archived on April 18, 1998 at 13:03:42. Id. The article was available as a PDF file, downloadable from the same page. Id. (identifying in a cover page the URL showing that Ex. 1009 was available from www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~ishin/paper.ps, as of April 18, 1998). We find this evidence credible and undisputed. Finally, there is also undisputed evidence that Dr. Rubin read Shin in 1998. Ex. 2022, 70:20−71:13. Accordingly, we find that Shin was publicly available and sufficiently accessible online to persons interested in applet security no later than April 14, 1998.” slip op. at 19

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

    “We find that Shin’s constant pool is not the same as the IAT embodiment described in the ’633 patent. As stated above, the mobile protection code modifies the IAT at the destination while processing the one or more operations of the executable code. In contrast, Shin’s applet is modified at the proxy server, and its modification constitutes rewriting the bytecode of the applet, which is executable. See Ex. 1009, 2 (“we propose a technique, called bytecode modification, through which we put restrictions on applets by inserting additional bytecode instructions that will perform the necessary run-time tests”), 4 (“modified executable entities are inserted in Java bytecode”). As explained by Shin, the constant pool is part of the class file of the applet. Id. at 5. Further, the bytecode modification is not performed at run-time, like the IAT modification table scenario. See id. at 2 (“HTTP proxy server []modifies classes before they are received by the browser”), 4 (Shin explaining that the “safety mechanism must be applied before the applet is executed”). The differences are significant, for the modification of the applet at the server is precisely the type of modification that the ’633 patent sought to avoid. The applet is undisputedly executable code, and is what Petitioner pointed to in Shin as disclosing executable code. See Pet. 43 (“Shin also discloses that the safeguarding code processes operations attempted by the applet (‘executable code’) . . . .”). By describing that the server modifies the constant pool in the applet, we find that Shin teaches modifying the executable code before the applet is processed at the client browser. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Shin teaches or suggests that the applet is “executable code” as we have construed the claim language, supra.” slip op. at 26

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “and 2048 in general as irrelevant, potentially confusing, and prejudicial. Id. at 8−15. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is denied as moot, because that evidence objected to is not relied upon in reaching our determination that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that claims 14 and 19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 7,647,633 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,647,633
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2017 · IPR2015-01974 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14 and 19 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because both relied on modified executable code, contrary to the Board’s construction.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “To conclude, our determination is based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims within the context of the specification. First, 7 Similarly, Petitioner relies on testimony from the deposition of Finjan’s expert in the District Court litigation, Dr. Nenad Medvidovic, Exhibit 1100. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1100). 8 We do not rely on expert testimony also because extrinsic evidence may not be used to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic record. Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2015). according to the entire disclosure of the ’633 patent specification the executable code is received at the destination without modification. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,” and “acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.”). “The specification may define claim terms ‘by implication’ such that the meaning may be ‘found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.’” Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed.Cir.2001) (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582, 1584 n. 6). We also confirm the scope of the “executable code” in light of the advantage of the invention, e.g., to protect against malicious code without modifying the executable code, thereby minimizing resources. See Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing a ring as permanently attached to the cover because all embodiments read together suggest this relationship and the specification describes the advantages of the unitary structure). Although the specification describes additional advantages, such as not requiring pre-installation of security code within the destination, the claims need not encompass all stated advantages. See Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[P]atentees [are] not required to include within each of their claims all of [the] advantages or features described as significant or important in the written description.”). Finally, all the embodiments are consistent with and support the inventors’ characterization of the problem solved: avoiding the resource intensive modification by communicating to the destination the mobile protection code and the detected executable code. See Ex. 1001, 10:39−45; 1:63−3:6; see also O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (relying on the consistent disclosure of structures as being either non-smooth or conical and the statements distinguishing prior art where structures were smooth). In light of the disclosure, the plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed claim language emerges: the executable code whose operations are processed by the mobile protection code at the destination is the same as the executable code received, i.e., it undergoes no modification. In sum, we determine that the “executable code” at the destination is not modified.” slip op. at 16

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

    “publication or dissemination. See Ex. 1009. Petitioner, however, has provided other evidence establishing that Shin was publicly available no later than April 1998. A printout of the website directed to Mr. Shin’s research at Stanford, and archived by archive.org, shows that the article’s title was listed and that the article was publicly available through the Internet as of April 14, 1998. Ex. 1095. As explained in the affidavit proffered by Christopher Butler, Office Manager of Internet Archive, the URL format for captured website, “19980418130342/http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~ishin/research.html,” establishes that the website posting the abstract and the title of the article with a link to the article itself were archived on April 18, 1998 at 13:03:42. Id. The article was available as a PDF file, downloadable from the same page. Id. (identifying in a cover page the URL showing that Ex. 1009 was available from www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~ishin/paper.ps, as of April 18, 1998). We find this evidence credible and undisputed. Finally, there is also undisputed evidence that Dr. Rubin read Shin in 1998. Ex. 2022, 70:20−71:13. Accordingly, we find that Shin was publicly available and sufficiently accessible online to persons interested in applet security no later than April 14, 1998.” slip op. at 18

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

    “We find that Shin’s constant pool is not the same as the IAT embodiment described in the ’633 patent. As stated above, the mobile protection code modifies the IAT at the destination while processing the one or more operations of the executable code. In contrast, Shin’s applet is modified at the proxy server, and its modification constitutes rewriting the bytecode of the applet, which is executable. See Ex. 1009, 2 (“we propose a technique, called bytecode modification, through which we put restrictions on applets by inserting additional bytecode instructions that will perform the necessary run-time tests”), 4 (“modified executable entities are inserted in Java bytecode”). As explained by Shin, the constant pool is part of the class file of the applet. Id. at 5. Further, the bytecode modification is not performed at run-time, like the IAT modification table scenario. See id. at 2 (“HTTP proxy server []modifies classes before they are received by the browser”), 4 (Shin explaining that the “safety mechanism must be applied before the applet is executed”). The differences are significant, for the modification of the applet at the server is precisely the type of modification that the ’633 patent sought to avoid. The applet is undisputedly executable code, and is what Petitioner pointed to in Shin as disclosing executable code. See Pet. 43 (“Shin also discloses that the safeguarding code processes operations attempted by the applet (‘executable code’) . . . .”). By describing that the server modifies the constant pool in the applet, we find that Shin teaches modifying the executable code before the applet is processed at the client browser. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Shin teaches or suggests that the applet is “executable code” as we have construed the claim language, supra.” slip op. at 26

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “and 2048 in general as irrelevant, potentially confusing, and prejudicial. Id. at 8−15. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is denied as moot, because that evidence objected to is not relied upon in reaching our determination that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing that claims 14 and 19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 7,647,633 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,647,633
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · IPR2016-01071 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10, and 11 were not shown unpatentable over Ross because Ross does not teach or suggest content including a call to a first function.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “D. OBVIOUSNESS GROUND BASED ON ROSS The Petition relies on Ross as teaching or suggesting all the limitations of claims 18, 10, and 11. Pet. 1437. Having reviewed the arguments and evidence provided by Petitioner and the arguments and evidence presented by Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Ross teaches or suggests all the limitations of the challenged claims, and more particularly, “the content including a call to a first function.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “first function.” But the Specification uses the phrase “function call” in stating that “before the client computer invokes a function call that may potentially dynamically generate malicious code, the client computer passes the input to the function to the security computer for inspection.” Ex. 1001, 4:3842. The Specification also states that “the present invention operates by replacing original function calls with substitute function calls within the content, at a gateway computer, prior to the content being received at the client computer.” Id. at 4:5760. From such examples, we understand the Specification to use the phrase “function call” in the same sense that the claims recite in the phrase “call to a [] function.” That is, a “call” is part of the recited “content,” as a statement or instruction containing the function that, when executed, causes the function to provide a service. Thus, we find the dictionary definition of the term “function call” applicable here and indicative of the meaning of the term to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “3. Conclusion Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Ross. Because we find that Ross does not teach or suggest “content including a call to a first function,” we need not consider whether Patent Owner succeeded in its attempt to prove the prior invention of the ’154 patent or whether a conclusion of nonobviousness is warranted because of evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 22

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “[w]hile replies can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned. The Board will not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply. Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability or unpatentability of an original or proposed substitute claim, and new evidence that could have been presented in a prior filing. Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48767; see also Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir., 2015) (discussing that a patent owner “is undoubtedly entitled to notice of and fair opportunity to meet the grounds of rejection.”). With these guidelines in mind, we are persuaded that the above-identified argument in the Reply should not be considered in deciding this matter. As stated above, the Petition relies on Ross’s “hook functions within a hook script” as teaching or suggesting the “call to a first function.” Pet. 1718. Although the Petition relies on the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art when explaining Ross’s handling of the hook function, Petitioner does not assert in any meaningful way that Ross’s use of hook functions in the hook script would be modified to include calls to additional hook functions that Ross does not describe. Nor does Petitioner explain in the Petition that Ross would be modified to replace the assignment instruction with a call to the hook function. The arguments in the Reply are not explanations of how Ross’s hook functions, as taught by Ross, may be understood to include the recited “call to a first function,” as asserted in the Petition. Rather, the argument that a “call” may be added to either the security check or the hook script is an alteration of Ross, necessitated because Patent Owner correctly argues that Ross fails to teach or suggest the limitation. The contention that Ross’s embodiments would be modified, altered, or imbued with details not present in Ross is a new contention, necessary to make a case for the unpatentability of the claims, and should have been presented in the Petition. To consider the argument would unfairly prejudice Patent Owner who, after having argued there is a significant gap in Petitioner’s case, would be left without an opportunity to respond substantively to the new arguments and support its rebuttal with additional evidence, if necessary. Accordingly, we do not consider the improper arguments identified above.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,141,154 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,141,154
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · IPR2016-00151 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10, and 11 were not shown unpatentable over Ross because Ross does not teach or suggest content including a call to a first function.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “first function.” But the Specification uses the phrase “function call” in stating that “before the client computer invokes a function call that may potentially dynamically generate malicious code, the client computer passes the input to the function to the security computer for inspection.” Ex. 1001, 4:3842. The Specification also states that “the present invention operates by replacing original function calls with substitute function calls within the content, at a gateway computer, prior to the content being received at the client computer.” Id. at 4:5760. From such examples, we understand the Specification to use the phrase “function call” in the same sense that the claims recite in the phrase “call to a [] function.” That is, a “call” is part of the recited “content,” as a statement or instruction containing the function that, when executed, causes the function to provide a service. Thus, we find the dictionary definition of the term “function call” applicable here and indicative of the meaning of the term to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “of ordinary skill that is different from Petitioner’s. Ex. 2035 ¶ 35. In Particular, Dr. Medvidovic opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “bachelor’s degree in computer science or related field, and either (1) two or more years of industry experience and/or (2) an advanced degree in computer science or related field.” Id. In comparison, it appears that the minimum experience under Patent Owner’s proffered level of skill is one year less than Petitioner’s. Also, Patent Owner proffers an alternative to work experience, namely an advanced degree. There is no specific articulation regarding how the difference of one year’s experience or the proposed alternative of an advanced degree in lieu of experience tangibly affects our obviousness inquiry. Further, there is no evidence in this record that the differences noted above impact in any meaningful way the level of expertise of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, we note that Dr. Medvidovic’s opinions would not change if he had considered instead the level or ordinary skill in the art proffered by Dr. Rubin. Id. ¶ 39. Accordingly, we determine that in this case no express articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is necessary and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “Ross describes the combined hook script and the original script as using an “assignment,” not a “call” for invoking the first function. PO Resp. 2324 (citing Ex. 2035 ¶61). We credit this testimony. Ross illustrates in Figure 4, reproduced below, a combined script, which shows more detail regarding how Ross formulates the hook script and the included hook function. See Ex. 1003, Fig. 4. Figure 4 illustrates combined script 402 including hook script 404 and original script 302. Id. Dr. Medvidovic identifies the hook function in hook script 404 as “function HookedActiveXObject(objname).” Ex. 2035 ¶ 61. The combined script does not include a call to the function “HookedActiveXObject.” Instead, as Dr. Medvidovic explains, Ross’s hook script includes a call to the original function, not the hook function, as shown below in Patent Owner’s annotated Figure 4. The annotated Figure 4 of Ross, above, annotates Ross’s script by pointing out: (1) in brackets, that a group of instructions comprise the function “Hooked ActiveXObject(objname);” and (2) that the body of the function is the “Hook Function.” See PO Resp. 23. The annotations also show that the instruction “Req=new ActiveXObject(“Microsoft.XMLHTTP”)” is the “Call to Original Function.” Id. Dr. Medvidovic explains that the call to “new ActiveXObject(“Microsoft.XMLHTTP”) indirectly invokes “function HookedActiveXObject,” using Ross’s assignment technique. See Ex. 2035 ¶ 61. Ross’s description of the hook functions confirms this technique. For example, Ross states that “[t]he hook function corresponding to the data content original function is executed when the original function is called.” Ex. 1003, Abstract; see also ¶ 13 (“executing a hook function when a corresponding original function is called in the data content”). Ross further states that the “hook function is configured to supersede a corresponding original function.” Id. ¶¶ 1012.” slip op. at 14

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

    “the first function, the issue is not simply whether Ross executes or processes the first function first, before the second function. The issue is whether the content in Ross includes a “call to a first function,” as claimed. We find that Ross does not. Patent Owner’s explanation of Ross is consistent with Ross’s description of how the hook script is generated and processed. Ross’s hook script generator creates new functions to replace the original functions, such as the JavaScript function embedded in a web page. Id. ¶ 26. When the web page is received, the script filter injects “the JavaScript that hooks the critical functions and methods before any other HTML in a loading page.” Id. ¶ 29. To implement these “hooks,” Ross states that it replaces the original function with a new replacement function or that it substitutes an original function with a filtered function by instantiating a “hooked” process. Id. ¶¶ 33, 34. These statements of “replacement” and “substitution,” however, refer to how the hook functions are implemented when the script executes. Neither of these statements explains whether a “call” to a hook function is included in the script. That is, the replacement or substitution may result in invoking the hook function, without the content actually including a call. And this indirect invocation—not using a call—of the hooked function is what Ross tends to show. For instance, Ross describes the method of processing the content as follows: (1) generating a hook script with a hook function; (2) loading the hook script; (3) loading the data content having the original function; and (4) executing a hook function when a corresponding original function is called in the data content. Id. ¶ 38. Thus, the hook function is loaded before anything else is loaded in order to define the hook function and to effectuate the replacement. The replacement, or the method of superseding, is accomplished by the assignment that results from the use of the instruction ActiveXObject=HookedActiveXObject. As Dr. Medvidovic explains, by way of assignment of ActiveXObject (original function) to HookedActiveXObject (substitute or first function), a call to the original function indirectly invokes the substitute or first function. See Ex. 1011, 10:2013:21. This understanding is further confirmed by Ross’s description of the hook functions, as stated above, and when it refers to them as “new objects that will be used as replacements when the appropriate constructor is invoked.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 35 (emphasis added). In sum, Ross’s content does not include a “call to a first function” because the hook function is not directly called. There is no instruction or statement in the hook script that requests the service of the hook function. See also Ex. 2043 at 88:1116 (Dr. Rubin, Petitioner’s expert, testifying that “in the pseudocode in figure 4 [of Ross] there’s no explicit call to a hooked function.”). The hook function is invoked only when the call to the original function in the data content, which has been assigned via the hook script to a hook function, is executed. See id. (“These hooks are installed before any other script on the web page loads, ensuring that any script provided as a part of the data content 602, such as a web page, will call the new hooked functions.”).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,141,154 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,141,154
• Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC v. Nidec Motor CorporationNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01617 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7–13 were not shown unpatentable because Beifus did not disclose the claimed torque table with alternate torque settings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Beifus states that Figure 6 “is a chart illustrating an induction motor speed-torque curve that is programmed into a memory of an ECM.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 11. Because “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference,” the dispositive issue in this proceeding is well defined: does Figure 6 (and related disclosure) of Beifus teach “selecting a torque table associated with the adjustment factor, the torque table including alternate torque settings,” as recited in independent claim 7? See Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “reasoning of Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner contends that “[u]pon reading Beifus, a person of ordinary skill would immediately recognize that the ECM control circuit could handle the torque values in two ways – storing a set of torque values in a memory or by calculating the torque values ‘on the fly.’” Reply 18. Kennametal explains that “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘do[es] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination.” Kennametal at 1381 (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)). Petitioner did not raise the Kennametal theory of anticipation in its Petition, and the argument based on it in the Reply is, therefore, improper. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response.”) (emphasis added); CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Helferich Pat. Lic., LLC, Case IPR2013-00033, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2013) (Paper 79) (“Should there be improper arguments or evidence presented with a reply, the Board, exercising its discretion, may exclude the reply and related evidence in their entirety, or alternatively, decline to consider the improper arguments and/or related evidence.”). Although Patent Owner addressed this theory in its Response (PO Resp. 21–24), Patent Owner appears to have done so only prophylactically after the theory was raised by Petitioner in redirect examination of Dr. Sidman. See PO Resp. 21 (“During Dr. Sidman’s redirect examination by [Petitioner’s] counsel, he was asked the following leading question . . . .”) (“The Board should disregard any of this new evidence and argument if [Petitioner] intends to rely on it.”). Because this is a new argument, not raised in the Petition, we do not consider it.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “the ambiguity when Figure 6 is actually described in detail in the specification.” Id. at 16. As Patent Owner asserts, “Beifus makes it clear that Figure 6 is a plot of values derived from key characteristics which are motor parameters of the emulated motor.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 36; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16, 31). This understanding of Beifus is confirmed by testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mark N. Horenstein, Ph.D. Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 15–16. Dr. Horenstein explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the parameters stored in the ECM are key parameters used with the formula reproduced above to describe the torque-speed curve of the induction motor being emulated, namely the no-load speed, breakdown speed, and shape description number n. Id. ¶ 15. Dr. Horenstein further testifies that, “although square and diamond symbols appear along the curves in Figure 6, nowhere does Beifus describe the storing of these individual points.” Id. ¶ 16. Rather, Dr. Horenstein expresses his opinion that “a person of skill would understand these symbols to be included simply to identify which curve applies to Option 1 and which to Option 2 [i.e., different options for the induction motor breakdown speed], as indicated by the legend to the right of the plots.” Id. Petitioner challenged Dr. Horenstein’s opinion at his deposition, in part by comparing a drawing from one of Dr. Horenstein’s own patents that included a series of curves with data marked by different symbols: Q. So if a person of ordinary skill in the art looking at Figure 6 of the Beifus patent sees diamonds and squares, wouldn’t they come to an understanding that those are data points? A. I don’t think so. And the reason is that a formula is given that explains how the curves are computed. Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s patent], those are discretely measured points performed by experiment, and there really is no formula that applies to those curves per se, they’re just data points that have some scatter relative to each other and they happen to be connected by lines, but those lines do not represent a formula. Ex. 1013, 54:2–16. We disagree with Petitioner’s characterization of this testimony as explaining that “the reason a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the diamonds and squares appearing in Figure 19 of [Dr. Horenstein’s] patent are data points, as opposed to mere curve identifiers, is because the diamonds and squares are connected by lines.” Reply 15. Rather, Dr. Horenstein’s testimony makes clear that his opinion is grounded in Beifus’s disclosure of a formula that allows calculation of the illustrated points and that connection of data points measured by experiment with lines is incidental. Dr. Horenstein’s testimony is more persuasive than the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Michael D. Sidman, Ph.D., on the identification of “key characteristic points” disclosed by Beifus. For example, Dr. Sidman appeared to suggest at his deposition that the entire speed-torque curve of Beifus’s Figure 6 is itself a “key characteristic point,” but qualified that position when challenged by Patent Owner. See Ex. 2001, 23:22–25:15. Nevertheless, Dr. Sidman agrees that (1) a curve can be generated from a mathematical formula and graphed (Ex. 2001, 30:8–11); (2) Beifus’s two formulas correspond to the formulas for “Option 1” and “Option 2” shown in Figure 6 (id. at 33:12–36:19); (3) operating speed, breakdown speed, no load speed, and shape-description number n are variables used in the formula disclosed by Beifus (id. at 22:23–23:10); (4) the calculation disclosed by Beifus could be performed on the fly in a motor controller (id. at 47:6–14); and (5) Beifus does not explicitly disclose that any precalculations are performed (id. at 43:1–23). These aspects of Dr. Sidman’s testimony are consistent with Patent Owner’s reading of Beifus.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “We see no compelling reason to modify these constructions based on the positions of the parties as developed during the trial, and adopt them for this Decision. With respect to the construction of “torque table,” Patent Owner asserts: If the Board’s construction means that the table need not be in any particular format in the memory, but the table must still store the alternative torque values required by the claim “in a memory connected to the motor,” then Patent Owner accepts this interpretation for the purposes of this proceeding. However, if the Board’s construction including reference to “a torque curve graphically representing a set of torque values” does not require the torque values shown on the curve to be stored in memory, it is erroneous. PO Resp. 9. We agree with Patent Owner’s position, namely that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘table’ still must require the torque values to be stored in the table.” Id. As Patent Owner points out, “[t]he only intrinsic evidence available in this proceeding demonstrates a ‘torque table’ stores alternative torque settings.” Id. In particular, the ’092 patent consistently uses “table” to refer to discrete data that are stored in a memory, such as in the “speed tables” described as alternatives to “torque tables.” See Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 5–24, col. 16, ll. 63–66 (“Instead of adjusting the torque as described above, the motor controller 18 could store a plurality of different torque or speed tables and select one of the torque/speed tables based on an input provided by the torque adjustment mechanism.”). This aspect of the construction of “torque table” is reflected in its reference to including a graphical representation of “a set” of torque values in a memory connected to a motor.” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,990,092 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,990,092

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.