• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · IPR2015-01979 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10, and 11 were not shown unpatentable: Khazan does not teach conditional invocation of the second function, and the proposed three-reference combination lacks adequate motivation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Medvidovic disagrees with Dr. Rubin’s opinion that instrumentation can occur in many hosts. Ex. 2002 ¶ 71. His testimony is unconvincing, however. Dr. Medvidovic does not address Dr. Rubin’s assessment that Khazan teaches instrumentation on a host that is different from the host that executes the wrapped function. Instead, Dr. Medvidovic asserts that Khazan does not disclose applications received through a network. Id. Further, Dr. Medvidovic opines that Khazan addresses viruses that infect applications resident within a computer’s file rather than in content received over a network. Id. We find that Dr. Medvidovic’s statements do not address Petitioner’s contention and ignore relevant teachings of Khazan. For instance, Khazan teaches that each host accesses information stored in data storage devices using a network (communication medium). Ex. 1003 ¶ 33. And any of Khazan’s components—e.g., static analyzer, dynamic analyzer, libraries, application executable, etc.—may be stored in the data storage system. See id. ¶ 72 (describing Figure 4A, which also lists the various lists 106, 111, 112). Therefore, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s narrow assessment of Khazan, which would limit application of Khazan’s techniques exclusively to a file resident in the host, rather than on content received over a network. Indeed, Khazan expressly discloses an embodiment in which instrumentation is performed “before invocation of the application” allowing for the instrumented library (or application) to be stored on a storage device. Ex. 1003 ¶ 75. That storage device, as discussed above, is accessed via a network. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude, and we find that, Khazan teaches or suggests that any host may receive over the network (communication medium 18) instrumented applications or libraries for processing at the host.” slip op. at 36

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “level of ordinary skill that is different from Petitioner’s. Ex. 2002 ¶ 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 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. ¶ 38. Accordingly, we determine that in this case no express definition 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 17

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

    “We credit DeSart’s testimony regarding the normal business practices of the Library at which he is employed since March 2000. Id. ¶ 1. His opinion is based on personal knowledge of these business practices and his familiarity with the Library’s business records. Id.; Ex. 2006, 14:515:20. The copy of the article, with the first page we discuss above, is a copy of the periodical maintained by the Library in its ordinary course of business, and is authenticated as such. Id. ¶ 3. Further indicia of publication supports our determination that Sirer is a printed publication. The copyright page of the Library copy provides for limited rights to copy and “republish” with permission and/or a fee by contacting the publications department of ACM. Id., 5. That page also includes an ACM ISBN number (1-58113-140-2) and instructions on how to order additional copies, information which is also included in the footer of Exhibit 1004, indicating that copies of the periodical were available from ACM without restriction. Id. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we conclude that Sirer is a printed publication. Moreover, considering the dates on the face of the article, the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the periodical at the library, and the business practice of circulating periodicals at the Engineering Library, we determine that Sirer’s date of publication is evident as of February 8, 2000, when the Library would have displayed the periodical, and as early as January 2000, when a subscriber to the periodical, such as the Library of Washington, would have received the periodical.12 See Ex. 2006, 17:615 (DeSart testifying that journals published by ACM were received directly from the publisher under a subscription); 21:2222:8. We also find that skilled artisans exercising reasonable diligence would have been able to locate Sirer. In addition to the accessibility of the article on the library display area and on shelves, DeSart testified that the periodical containing the Sirer, “Operating Systems Review,” was catalogued in the library’s electronic catalog. Ex. 2006, 10:1311:23. The periodical could be searched by the title of the periodical and its keywords. Id.; 30:1431:9.” slip op. at 25

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

    “We find that Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how the reference’s teachings would be combined in order to achieve the claimed limitations. For instance, Petitioner’s assertion that the combination is predictable because the references continue to do what they did prior to the combination (Ex. 1002 ¶ 125) is conclusory and unreasonable in light of the various and necessary, yet unexplained modifications of Khazan’s teachings for combinability with those of Sirer and Ben-Natan.” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 8,141,154 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,141,154
• Resmed Limited / Resmed Inc., And Resmed Corp v. Fisher & Paykel Healthcare LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2017 · IPR2016-01718 · APJ Barry L Grossman · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 2–4, 6–10, 12–17, 19, 20, and 35 obvious over the asserted reference combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “§ 315(a)(1) because Petitioner filed a declaratory judgment action for invalidity of the ’741 Patent on August 16, 2016, and before filing the instant Petition. Prelim. Resp. 10–17. That action, however, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 18, 2016, well before the instant Petition was filed. Pet. 1–2 (citing Ex. 1046). As such, Patent Owner’s argument fails because prior Board decisions have consistently interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) as not barring inter partes review if the previously filed civil action was dismissed without prejudice, which is the case here. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC, Case IPR2015-00486, slip op. at 6–7 (PTAB Jul. 15, 2015) (Paper 10); Oracle Corp. v. Click-to-Call Techs. LP, Case IPR2013-00312, slip op. at 12–13 (PTAB Oct. 28, 2014) (Paper 52).” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “D. Prior Consideration of Arguments under § 325(d) Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board, acting on behalf of the Director, may take into account whether, and reject a petition because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office. Patent Owner argues that the Board should exercise its discretion under § 325(d) and deny institution of a trial because Gunaratnam was expressly considered by the PTO during prosecution of the ’741 patent. Prelim. Resp. 38–39. We recognize that Gunaratnam was considered and applied by the Examiner during the PTO proceedings leading to issuance of the ’741 patent. The specific combination of references asserted in the Petition, the evidence provided by the Declaration testimony of Dr. Izuchukwu, and the specific factual issues raised by the Petition and newly cited references, however, were not previously considered. Accordingly, we do not reject or deny the Petition under § 325(d).” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a related discipline, and at least five years of relevant product design experience in the field of medical devices or respiratory therapy, or an equivalent advanced education.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 17). Patent Owner does not propose a level of skill. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for the purposes of our Decision.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with, and adopt, Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction. It is more consistent with the “ring” structure claimed, disclosed in the Specification, and supported by the dictionary definitions of record. We are aware that the Specification also discloses that mask base 22 may include additional structures, such as a channel 45 on one side of base 22 to receive lip 28 on mask body 23, and a semi-tubular projection 29 on the other side of base 22 to receive a ball joint connector end to accommodate connector 30. Ex. 1002, 6:27–30; 42–46. Various other structures also are disclosed for allowing mask body 23 and connector 30 to connect to base 22. Id. at 6:30–42. Neither channel 45, semi-tubular projection 29, nor the other disclosed structures are recited in claim 2 as part of the “ring.” The structure recited in claim 2 is simply a ring. For the purposes of this Decision, we determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of the term “ring” is a generally circular band of material.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,479,741
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01801 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30, 31, 33, and 40–46 were not shown unpatentable because Rabinovich required prior client access before replication, and Carter did not cure that limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Ratner, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 21–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 20. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. at 21. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

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

    “whether to replicate data object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating/migrating object xs only if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, and the ratio can be greater than m only if cnt(s,xs) is greater than zero. PO Resp. 19; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication or migration step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate or migrate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independent of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer.” slip op. at 18

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

    “30, for use with a computer game (claim 45) and with an interactive computer game accessed by at least two users (claim 46). Ex. 1001, 30:47– 54. In connection with its obviousness contentions, Petitioner makes no separate arguments why Rabinovich teaches or suggests shifting redundantly stored data based upon data transmission parameters between the servers independent of an access of the client. Pet. 45–47; Reply 17–18. Because claims 45 and 46 depend from claim 30, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rabinovich teaches or suggests the limitations in these two dependent claims for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 30.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS RE40,521 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rabinovich; Petitioner did not prove claims 1–15 obvious over Rabinovich.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 19–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 21. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

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

    “object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating object xs if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, i.e., a non-zero value. PO Resp. 34; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Rabinovich object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independently of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Rabinovich” slip op. at 18

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

    “pieces” Claim 1 recites “each file including a plurality of individual pieces, the pieces containing parts of the files.” Ex. 1002, 25:67–26:1. The other independent claims recite limitations commensurate in scope. Neither party proposes explicitly a construction of the term “piece.” Petitioner argues that “files are inherently composed of pieces in the form of bits that make up bytes, the bytes themselves being pieces of the file.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner argues that construing “piece” to cover “bits and bytes” of a file “would read out the ‘pieces’ limitation from the claim entirely” (PO Resp. at 29–30) and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the ‘pieces’ limitation of the claim to include bits and bytes” (id. at 30). The claims themselves define “piece” by requiring that a “file” have a “plurality of individual pieces,” but do not establish a lower bound—i.e., a minimum number of bits or bytes—to qualify as a “piece.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the ’680 patent for its contention that “piece” or “pieces” excludes a byte or bytes of a file, relying instead solely on the testimony of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39). We are not persuaded by Dr. Jacobs’s conclusory testimony. Because “piece” and “pieces” are limited by the claims only to being a subset of a file and because a byte or collection of bytes of a file is a subset of that file, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “piece” and “pieces” in light of the Specification of the ’680 patent encompasses a byte or bytes. slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,904,680 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,904,680
• Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01020 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests, finding no misapprehension or oversight in its decisions rejecting the challenge to claims 1–20 as obvious.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Section 42.71(d) further provides that the request must identify where each matter was previously addressed.” slip op. at 2

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s second argument is that Petitioner’s theory of the chip select signal generating another logic signal, as presented in its Reply, was an “entirely new rationale.” Req. Reh’g 4–7. We disagree. As noted above, there was no new rationale presented, and we found that Petitioner did not assert a new theory. Petitioner’s Reply was based on the same ground of obviousness, involving the same combination of references (Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly), and proffering the same particular application of the Takeda reference, as set forth in the Petition. Therefore, we determine that we did not misapprehend or overlook the nature of Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply.” slip op. at 4

  None
  Patents in suitUS 7,881,150
• Sandisk Corporation v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01021 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing requests, finding no overlooked or misapprehended evidence or arguments in the Final Written Decisions.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Section 42.71(d) further provides that the request must identify where each matter was previously addressed.” slip op. at 2

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s second argument is that Petitioner’s theory of the chip select signal generating another logic signal, as presented in its Reply, was an “entirely new rationale.” Req. Reh’g 4–7. We disagree. As noted above, there was no new rationale presented, and we found that Petitioner did not assert a new theory. Petitioner’s Reply was based on the same ground of obviousness, involving the same combination of references (Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly), and proffering the same particular application of the Takeda reference, as set forth in the Petition. Therefore, we determine that we did not misapprehend or overlook the nature of Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply.” slip op. at 4

  None
  Patents in suitUS 8,081,536
• Great West Casualty Company / Bitco General Insurance Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2017 · IPR2015-01707 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–13 and 15–20 are unpatentable: claims 11, 12, and 16–20 as obvious over Payne, and claims 13 and 15 as obvious over Payne and Ackley.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “guidance in resolving this disagreement. To that end, the relevant portion of independent claim 11 recites “at least one server operative to store one or more of: a) content, b) links to content.” As an initial matter, controlling precedent from our reviewing court instructs us that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings. Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings.”); CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of . . . evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). Accordingly, on a high level, each of the following express claim terms are presumed to have different meanings: “content”; and, “links to content.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner because Patent Owner’s assertions are misplaced. Most prominently, were O’Neil the only factual support for Patent Owner’s position, it may be persuasive. Petitioner’s proposed modification, however, relies not only on O’Neil, but also on Payne and the Declaration of Dr. Greenspun. Pet. 48–49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 240, 241; Ex. 1006, 6:9–42, 8:38–53, 9:64–10:1, 5:16–25, and Fig. 5); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 272. In short, we are persuaded that the following findings in Payne asserted by Petitioner are accurate, and that it supports adequately Petitioner’s proposed modification. The system of Payne already includes functionality requiring a user to log on to an account, Ex. 1006 at 6:9–42, 8:38–53, so it would have been trivial to place the log in functionality directly on the digital advertising documents, which are web pages, see id. at 9:64–10:1, 5:16–25, Fig. 5. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 240. When a patent simply arranges old elements, each performing the same function it had been known to perform and together yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Pet. 48; see also Reply 11–16. As counter-evidence, Patent Owner cites to paragraphs 46–48 of the Declaration of Dr. Papakonstantinou. Those paragraphs, however, suffer from the same logical flaw identified above.” slip op. at 23

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Insofar as Patent Owner is asserting that Payne and Ackley are non- analogous art, we disagree. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To that end, Payne discloses that it relates to the field of “user-interactive network sales systems for implementing an open marketplace for goods or services over computer networks such as the Internet.” Ex. 1006, 1:14–17. Ackley discloses that it relates to the field “computer-based systems and methods that enable sales transactions between third parties through a communications network, such as internet auctions and classified systems.” Ex. 1008, 1:21–25. We see little daylight between these two fields, especially given that Ackley’s use of the word “such as” with “internet auctions” indicates that such “internet auctions” are a non-limiting example, and, thus, do not materially limit Ackley’s field of endeavor.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,516,177
• Great West Casualty Company / Bitco General Insurance Corporation et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2017 · IPR2015-01706 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11, 12, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious over MyLibrary.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In summary, we construe “content” as “electronic data embodying information for an individual or individuals,” and excluding “links to content,” but not excluding “content” associated with the “links to content.”5” slip op. at 16

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

    “written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable 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 37 C.F.R. § 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. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See 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.’”). For the purposes of this decision, and on this record, we determine that most claim terms do not need express interpretation. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Only those terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.).” slip op. at 5

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

    “7. Conclusion We are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 11, 12, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious in view of MyLibrary. In addition to findings we make above in connection with our analysis of claims 11, 12, and 16–20 as obvious in view MyLibrary, we also adopt as our findings Petitioner’s positions as to how MyLibrary discloses each of the limitations of claims 11, 12, and 16–20. We further adopt as our own Petitioner’s rationales for modifying MyLibrary, as referenced above.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 7,516,177 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,516,177
• The Toro Company v. MTD Products Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jan 4, 2017 · IPR2016-01352 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner does not offer a threshold amount of evidence explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art, looking to improve the ZTR vehicle of Hauser by adding steered wheels, would choose the front wheel steering assembly of Irikura. First, Petitioner does not direct us to evidence that Irikura itself is a ZTR vehicle or describes a steering assembly for zero-degree turns. Indeed, Patent Owner points out that Irikura is likely incapable of zero-degree turns, because Irikura describes a six-wheeled vehicle, and the back four fixed driving wheels would scuff in a zero-degree turn attempt. Prelim. Resp. 11–13 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 49, 50, 54, 209); see also Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 48–50 (stating the well-understood principle that the rotation axis of the wheel must intersect the turn radius in order not to scuff or slide), ¶¶ 207– 211 (explaining why the four fixed wheels indicate that the vehicle does not make zero-degree turns). On this record, Petitioner has not shown that the vehicle in Irikura is a ZTR vehicle or is designed purposefully for zero-degree turns because there is no discussion of such a feature, and the six-wheel nature of the vehicle indicates otherwise.” slip op. at 7

  • BurdenDenied

    “issue.”). Petitioner directs us to its declarant, Mr. Smith, who uses modified versions of Irikura’s drawings to depict various steering angles. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 76–83). Mr. Smith’s analysis allegedly “show[s] the wheels and gears of Irikura’s front steering assembly able to turn the wheels to effect small and zero radius turns.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 76. His drawings then show several modified versions of Irikura’s assembly. Id. ¶¶ 77–81. Mr. Smith never explains, however, the factual basis for his belief that Irikura would be capable of zero-degree turns in the first instance. Instead, he simply modifies the drawings to show them performing zero-degree turns; there is insufficient technical explanation or evidence explaining why the steering assembly is capable of the movements shown in the modified drawings. In summary, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered modifying the front caster wheels of Hauser with the front steerable wheels of Irikura because Hauser is a ZTR vehicle and Petitioner has not established sufficiently that Irikura’s front steerable wheels are capable of providing zero-degree turns. For this reason, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the ground of obviousness in view of Hauser and Irikura. This deficiency also applies to the Hauser-Irikura-Hoch ground, which makes use of the same combination of Hauser and Irikura. See Pet. 42 (stating that “the combination of Hauser and Irikura disclose[s] each and every element of claims 1-20,” but providing Hoch for limitations in claim 11 and 16, to the extent they are not disclosed).” slip op. at 9

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

    “established a reason to modify the front wheels of Hauser’s ZTR vehicle with the front wheel steering assembly of Irikura because Petitioner has not established that Irikura’s steering assembly is capable of a zero-radius turn. Prelim. Resp. 27–29 (arguing Irikura does not disclose zero-radius turns), 10–16 (same), 55–63 (arguing no reason to combine). In other words, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Irikura’s non-ZTR steering assembly for use in the ZTR steering assembly in Hauser. For the reasons that follow, this argument is persuasive. Petitioner does not offer a threshold amount of evidence explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art, looking to improve the ZTR vehicle of Hauser by adding steered wheels, would choose the front wheel steering assembly of Irikura. First, Petitioner does not direct us to evidence that Irikura itself is a ZTR vehicle or describes a steering assembly for zero-degree turns. Indeed, Patent Owner points out that Irikura is likely incapable of zero-degree turns, because Irikura describes a six-wheeled vehicle, and the back four fixed driving wheels would scuff in a zero-degree turn attempt. Prelim. Resp. 11–13 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 49, 50, 54, 209); see also Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 48–50 (stating the well-understood principle that the rotation axis of the wheel must intersect the turn radius in order not to scuff or slide), ¶¶ 207– 211 (explaining why the four fixed wheels indicate that the vehicle does not make zero-degree turns). On this record, Petitioner has not shown that the vehicle in Irikura is a ZTR vehicle or is designed purposefully for zero-degree turns because there is no discussion of such a feature, and the six-wheel nature of the vehicle indicates otherwise.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “a six-wheel vehicle. See Pet. 16–18 (depicting Irikura as a four-wheel vehicle); Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 76–81 (Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Smith, depicting Irikura as a four-wheel vehicle).5 Patent Owner points out that a six-wheel vehicle having four fixed wheels would not generally be considered capable of performing zero-degree turns because the back wheels would slide or scuff. Prelim. Resp. 11–13, 58 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 208–211). This makes Petitioner’s next faulty presumption more apparent. Petitioner’s second faulty presumption is that the drawings in Irikura can be used to measure particular, precise gearing relationships when the specification is silent as to the matter. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[P]atent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the 5 To the extent these figures are intended to depict the Hauser vehicle, modified to have Irikura’s front steering assembly, Petitioner’s analysis still would not have considered the four rear wheels of Irikura. issue.”). Petitioner directs us to its declarant, Mr. Smith, who uses modified versions of Irikura’s drawings to depict various steering angles. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 76–83). Mr. Smith’s analysis allegedly “show[s] the wheels and gears of Irikura’s front steering assembly able to turn the wheels to effect small and zero radius turns.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 76. His drawings then show several modified versions of Irikura’s assembly. Id. ¶¶ 77–81. Mr. Smith never explains, however, the factual basis for his belief that Irikura would be capable of zero-degree turns in the first instance. Instead, he simply modifies the drawings to show them performing zero-degree turns; there is insufficient technical explanation or evidence explaining why the steering assembly is capable of the movements shown in the modified drawings.” slip op. at 8

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,254,865
• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2016 · PGR2015-00018 · APJ Richard E Rice · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8, and 10–14 are unpatentable as indefinite under § 112(b); the Board did not reach the § 103(a) grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in science or engineering.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 10–13; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 10–13). Patent Owner responds that “the Board should limit Petitioner’s overly broad definition of a POSA from having an associate’s degree in any science or engineering to having an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 12. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner’s proposed definition should be limited because the inclusion of persons with an associate’s degree in any science or engineering fails to take into account the scope of the relevant art, which indisputably utilizes mechanical engineering principles.” Id. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent.” slip op. at 7

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

    “1. “elastic fastener” In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of the claim term “elastic fastener” is an elastic element for attaching things together. Inst. Dec. 7–8. As neither party proposes any change to our interpretation, and our review of the evidence does not indicate that any change is necessary, we maintain that interpretation.” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable

    “We determine that the test for indefiniteness that is applied in patent examination and reexamination matters, approved in Packard, should be applied in this post-grant review AIA proceeding, rather than the Nautilus requirement. The different approaches to indefiniteness before the PTO and the courts stem from the distinct roles that the PTO and the courts play in the patent system.12 In AIA proceedings, as in patent examination and reexamination matters, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, coupled with an opportunity to amend the claims, is an approach that is fair to the patent holder and protects the public. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2145–46; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1312–14. This approach serves to ensure precision in patent claims, thereby helping the public to understand the limits of the claims and keeping the rights afforded by patents within their legitimate scope. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2144–45; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313. Accordingly, among the reasons supporting application of the Packard-approved indefiniteness test in this AIA proceeding are those recognized by the Supreme Court in Cuozzo as supporting use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in inter partes review AIA proceedings. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2143–2146. Of these, the most important is the opportunity to amend the claims to correct any ambiguity. See id. at 2145 (“The patent holder may, at least once in the process, make a motion to do just what he would do in the examination process, namely, necessary) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the claim language unclear.” 12 See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1325 (Plager, J., concurring) (stating that “unlike courts which have a full prosecution record to consider, the prosecution record before the USPTO is in development and not fixed during examination”). amend or narrow the claim.”) (citation omitted); 35 U.S.C. § 326(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221. An applicant’s ability to clarify claim language through amendment was a significant reason why the Federal Circuit in Packard approved of the indefiniteness test recited in the MPEP (i.e., a “claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear”). Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313–14.” slip op. at 18

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. MOTIONS TO EXCUDE In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 57), Patent Owner seeks to exclude Petitioner’s Exhibits 1031 and 1032. Paper 57, 1–3. We deny Patent Owner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits in reaching our decision in this case. In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 59), Petitioner seeks to exclude Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2016–2018, 2020 (¶ 84), 2024, 2025 (¶ 39), 2026 (¶ 39), 2027–2070, 2073, 2074, 2078, and 2085. Paper 59, 1–8. We deny Petitioner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits and paragraphs in reaching our decision in this case.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,051,066 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,051,066

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.