• Google LLC v. Personalized Media Communications, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2020-00725 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 4 is unpatentable as obvious over Torpey and Cox ’645; claims 5–10 were not shown unpatentable over Cox ’645 and Cox ’404.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “transmission station’ is defined in” the ’560 patent. Ex. 1013, 29; see Ex. 2003, 3, 6. We agree that the ’560 patent defines the term “intermediate transmission station.” See Ex. 1001, 21:67–22:1. In particular, the patent states: “stations that receive and retransmit broadcast transmissions are called ‘intermediate transmission stations.’” Ex. 1001, 21:67–22:1; see Ex. 1013, 29; Ex. 2003, 3, 6. The ’560 patent further describes the “intermediate transmission station” as retransmitting programming both “over-the-air (hereinafter, ‘broadcast’) or over hard-wire (hereinafter, ‘cablecast’).” Ex. 1001, 7:16–22; see also 44:28–31 (“transmitting said transmissions via conventional broadcast or cablecast means”); 169:45–54. Consistent with the ’560 patent’s definition and both district courts, we construe “intermediate transmission station” to mean “station that can receive and retransmit broadcast transmissions.” See Ex. 1001, 21:48–50; Ex. 1013, 28–31, 88; Ex. 2003, 5–15. This definition does not exclude a station that can receive and retransmit hard-wire or cablecast transmission. See Ex. 1001, 7:16–22; see also id. at 44:28–31 (“transmitting said transmissions via conventional broadcast or cablecast means”), 169:45–54.” slip op. at 13

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

    “2. Other Terms Because the express construction of other claim terms are not needed to resolve any dispute in this proceeding at this time, we do not construe any of the other claim limitations. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1005, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in digital electronics, electrical engineering, computer engineering or a related technical degree, and two to five years of post-degree experience in a similar field.” PO Resp. 5. Dr. Weaver’s testimony supports Patent Owner’s position. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. Based on our review of the ’560 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’560 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of both Mr. Lipoff (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 33) and Dr. Weaver (see Ex. 2001 ¶ 35), we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering (or equivalent), and at least two years of work experience in the field of television broadcasting systems, computer systems or television electronics, and/or multimedia or real-time video systems. We agree with Petitioner’s contention that “[w]ith more education, for example, postgraduate degrees and/or study, less experience is needed to attain an ordinary level of skill in the art. Similarly, more experience can substitute for formal education.” We note that our analysis would be the same under either party’s proposed level of skill in the art. C.” slip op. at 16

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate sufficiently that Cox ’404’s column address code constitutes a record or that it is stored. See, e.g., Tr. 30:25–31:14. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that the column address code is altered “to indicate at least one of reception and storage of said selected a portion of units of programming,” as required by the challenged claim. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument that Cox ’404 discloses that “generated column address code which is incremented in response to each character Byte of the acquired data row” (Pet. 62–64; Tr. 17:24–20:13), Cox ’404 explicitly states the following: Each character Byte of a data row acquired by data acquisition circuit 44 is coupled to page memory 46 by a data line 56 and written into a corresponding memory location thereof in accordance with the address signals developed on an address bus 58, the address signals being formed by the row address code transmitted with the data row and an internally generated column address code which is incremented in response to each character Byte of the acquired data row. In other words, the row address code transmitted with each data row will cause the character Bytes of that row to be stored in the corresponding memory address row of page memory 46 while a clock internal of data acquisition circuit 44 will increment the column address for each character Byte of the row. Ex. 1007, 6:9–23 (emphasis added). We understand Cox ’404 to disclose that its incrementing step occurs in data acquisition circuit 44 of Figure 3, while the first character is being stored in page memory 46. Id. at 6:13–16, Fig. 3. But we do not find where incrementing is an indication of storage or that the purported record is maintained to indicate reception of a unit of programming. Based on the entire disclosure of Cox ’404, the incrementing may happen before, after, or at exactly the same time as the storage of the first character. Cox ’404 does not disclose any feedback mechanism for page memory 46 to indicate storage to data acquisition circuit 44, and therefore, the incrementing does not appear to be an indication of storage. See id. at 6:19–23, Fig. 3. Accordingly, based on the entirety of the trial record before us, we find Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Cox ’645 and Cox ’404 teaches more than one operating record or that the alleged operating records are altered to indicate reception and storage of a selected unit of programming as recited by the challenged claim.” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 9,674,560 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,674,560
• Netflix, Inc. / Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2020-00648 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 16, 17, and 19 are unpatentable over Pyle and Marusi; claims 1–6, 8–10, 13, and 14 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we found that Petitioner’s proposal was consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position. Inst. Dec. 8–9 (citing 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)). As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, we see no reason to disturb that finding. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in adaptive streaming and content management” or “a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in adaptive streaming or content management” and that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” See Inst. Dec. 8–9 (setting forth and adopting Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 10

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

    “the case law makes clear that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising’” unless an “extremely limited” exception applies. See Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 812 F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting KCJ Corp., 223 F.3d at 1356; Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Here, claim 1 recites the transitional phrase “comprising,” meaning it is open-ended, and, therefore, the usual meaning of “a” as “one or more” would have been expected absent an extremely limited exception. In considering whether an exception applies, our review of the ’515 patent fails to indicate that the patentee intended the phrase to mean anything other than the usual meaning of “one or more.” Patent Owner asserts that “[t]he plain language of the claim clearly indicates only a single [list] is used to list multiple assets” and quotes two portions of the Specification, which state “a list of assets that satisfies criteria” and “a list of assets to which a . . . device is granted access.” PO Sur-reply 12–13 (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:60–67) (citing Ex. 1001, 2:23–34, 3:1–5, 4:21–23, 17:59–66). Although claim 1 of the ’515 patent recites “assets” in the plural, we fail to see how that conveys that the term “a” would have been understood as limited to “one.” Notably, neither party has identified any inconsistency, in the claims or other portions of the Specification (including the portions quoted and/or cited by Patent Owner), resulting from construing “a” as “one or more.” And, we find that there is no reason why the claims could not be met under the construction of “a” as “one or more.” Thus, we find that the ’515 patent does not “evince [ ] a clear intent to limit a or an to one.” See Convolve, 812 F.3d at 1321 (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, we construe the term “a” in “a list of assets” as “one or more” such that the phrase “a list of assets” means “one or more list of assets.” Considering next the phrase “the list of assets” recited in limitation 1[e], the parties do not dispute that the use of the term “the” means that “the list of assets” refers back to the one or more list of assets retrieved in limitation 1[d] and discussed above. See PO Resp. 1–2; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. Similarly, the parties do not dispute that the phrase “the filtered list of assets,” recited in limitation 1[e], refers back to the list of assets resulting from the filtering step of limitation 1[d]. See PO Resp. 3–4; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. We agree with the parties that each of these phrases refers back to the previous instance of the recited terms.” slip op. at 15

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

    “motivated to combine these teachings for several reasons. Pet. 21. First, Petitioner contends “the combination is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices because using the capabilities of a client device to choose appropriately formatted content was a well-known technique.” Id. Petitioner asserts that “implementing Marusi’s techniques for organizing multiple representations and choosing among them based upon a client device’s capabilities would predictably function in Pyle’s system, which similarly seeks to target video content based on particular client device types and parameters.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 10:57–11:10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 147). Second, Petitioner argues that “detecting a client device’s capabilities based upon client device identifiers was a common and known solution to the problem of supplying information in a format usable by the client device.” Pet. 21. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to combine Marusi’s teachings with Pyle because it is one solution, from a finite number of known, and predictable solutions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 148). Third, with respect to Marusi’s databases, Petitioner contends “[t]he combination of Marusi’s databases to manage the data in Pyle’s system uses a known technique to improve similar systems.” Pet. 21. In particular, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to combine Marusi’s database teachings with Pyle because Pyle teaches storing the same content in multiple, different representations.” Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1004, 9:64–10:21). Further, Petitioner argues that “[u]sing a database to store and manage multiple representations of the same data, or even to simply store voluminous data for retrieval, was an extremely well-known and common application of databases.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 149). Additionally, Dr. Reader opines that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the teachings of Pyle and Marusi were complementary, and therefore would have been motivated to combine Pyle with Marusi to enhance the efficiency of generating, storing, and delivering multimedia content tailored to the capabilities of particular playback devices.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 150.” slip op. at 27

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

    “Patent Owner that Petitioner and Dr. Reader fail to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pyle generates a top level index file by placing a manifest file in memory for transmission to a client device. Pet. 35; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 184. “Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little or no weight.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“Consolidated TPG”), 40–41, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (citing Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Here, there is no explanation or reason given for Petitioner’s assertion or Dr. Reader’s testimony and the connection, if any, is not otherwise apparent. Further, aside from Dr. Reader’s unexplained position, Petitioner has not pointed us to any evidence of record supporting the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that placement of a file in memory for transmission teaches generating the file as recited in limitation 1[f]. Accordingly, without any explanation whatsoever, the record is without a sufficiently supported basis upon which to make that finding, resulting in a failure of proof by Petitioner with respect to claim 1.11 10 We also note that Petitioner’s Reply does not seek to add a new argument for our consideration; rather, Petitioner’s Reply asserts, albeit incorrectly, that the argument was raised in the Petition. See Pet. Reply 15. 11 Although Petitioner’s Reply sets forth several arguments in response to other arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Response, those additional arguments do not address to this aspect of limitation 1[f]. See, e.g., Pet. c. Dependent Claims 4, 5, 8–10, and 14 Petitioner contends that the combination of Pyle and Marusi would have rendered the subject matter of claims 4, 5, 8–10, and 14 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 36–41. Claims 4, 5, 8–10, and 14 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, include limitation 1[f], as discussed above. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, Petitioner’s analysis of these claims suffers from the same deficiency.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,998,515 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,998,515
• Google LLC v. Personalized Media Communications, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2020-00721 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7, 8, and 10 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over each asserted combination; claim 9 was not shown unpatentable because Lovett and Cox do not teach its switch connections.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan requires slightly less experience (“two to five years”) than Petitioner’s description (“at least three years”). See Pet. 12; Resp. 4. We adopt Patent Owner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’920 patent as well as the asserted prior art. Moreover, if the prior art renders the claimed subject matter obvious to a person with less experience and less knowledge, then the prior art renders the claimed subject matter obvious to a person with more experience and more knowledge. See Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We note that our analysis would not change if we adopted Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Consistent with this, Dr. Weaver testifies that “the analysis would be the same” under either Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan or Patent Owner’s description. Ex. 2001 ¶ 37; see id. ¶¶ 34, 36.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “term ‘intermediate transmission station’ is defined in” the ’920 patent. Ex. 1013, 29; see Ex. 2003, 3, 6. We agree that the ’920 patent defines the term “intermediate transmission station.” See Ex. 1001, 21:48–50. In particular, the patent states: “stations that receive and retransmit broadcast transmissions are called ‘intermediate transmission stations.’” Ex. 1001, 21:48–50; see Ex. 1013, 29; Ex. 2003, 3, 6. Consistent with the ’920 patent’s definition and both district courts, we construe “intermediate transmission station” to mean “station that can receive and retransmit broadcast transmissions.” See Ex. 1001, 21:48–50; Ex. 1013, 28–31, 88; Ex. 2003, 5–15.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Based on the claim language and the ’920 patent’s specification, we agree with Patent Owner that “operatively connected [to]” means “connected to enable data communication operations with.” See Ex. 1001, 9:1–5, 167:61–168:36, 169:26–43, 169:61–170:36, 171:32–172:55, 173:57–62, 183:24–39, 289:1–14, Figs. 6A–6B; Paper 28, 1–3. We also agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed constructions focus on switch operation, i.e., “permits the switch to selectively,” instead of external connections to the switch. See Paper 27, 1; Paper 30, 1.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had sound reasons, i.e., the reasons articulated by Dr. Neuhauser, to combine the teachings of Lovett and Cox as Petitioner proposes. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67, 78, 86–87. For example, a “person of skill would have been motivated” to use Cox’s “known method” for distributing teletext content with “the teletext content distributed by Lovett” to achieve the advantages of Cox’s teletext communication system. Id. ¶ 67. We also agree with Petitioner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Id. ¶ 66. (j)” slip op. at 56

  Patent outcomesUS 7,865,920 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,865,920
• Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2021 · IPR2019-01461 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 8–12 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6–7 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed withdrawing-conveyor combinations do not support the claimed advancing operation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s undisputed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with our understanding on the evidence before us. The prior art addressed the same or similar problem as the ’513 Patent, specifically, the filling of packages with food product during the dwell period when the machinery is stationary while a new group of packages is being formed. Ex. 1001, 1:22–41; Ex. 1005, 2:10–18; Ex. 1006, 8–9, Fig. 4; Ex. 1007, 1–2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 7, 12, 57, 108–111, 133, 206–207. Other problems recognized in the art include food insertion accuracy, non-disturbance of shingled or stacked food product during deposition in containers, and efficiency in filling containers with food product. Ex. 1001, 1:42–47; Ex. 1005, 2:5–9; Ex. 1006, 1–3; Ex. 1007, 1–2. The prior art also taught solutions to these problems, and the technology needed to carry out those solutions. Ex. 1005, 2:10–18; Ex. 1006, 8–9, Fig. 4; Ex. 1007, 1–2. Petitioner’s statement of the educational level and experience is consistent with that needed to implement the solutions set out in the ’513 Patent and in the prior art. Accordingly, we apply this level of ordinary skill in the art in this decision. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 11

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

    “Patent Owner contends that “food product drafts” recited in the claims is a term of art that means “piles, bunches or groups of thin sliced product.” PO Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:42–43); see also Ex. 1001, 1:48–52, 2:12–17, 2:22–30, 5:53–54; Ex. 2002 ¶ 35. Patent Owner does not contend, however, that its proposed construction of “drafts” would have any effect on interpretation of the steps recited in the claims. Accordingly, we decline to construe “drafts” as Patent Owner proposes, but instead apply the ordinary and customary meaning of “drafts” as “sliced foods” or “sliced food product.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 80.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “multi-fill” depositing of a row of drafts at a time. But the claim language is broader and also covers “piece-by-piece” or “one by one” deposition, for example, when drafts have a staggered arrangement on the conveyor belt, and drafts are deposited one by one in the pockets of each row. We find no language in the ’513 Patent, its claims, or its file history, that restricts the claims to “multi-fill” deposition as Patent Owner uses the term. More particularly, the claims do not recite any particular timing or order for how the drafts are deposited: the claims merely require depositing a row of drafts in package pockets at each of the first and second positions. Patent Owner further contends that the ’513 Patent touts that multi- draft deposit with a 4x4 array of drafts is deposited into four rows, which increases production speed by 400%. PO Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:4–11; Ex. 2002 ¶ 38). The cited part of the ’513 Patent does not mention increasing production. It does, however, convey that the dwell time may be quite short, lasting a few to several seconds, from which one might surmise that “multi-fill” deposition may be advantageous in saving time in depositing drafts during the dwell period. But this falls far short of expressing a “manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.” See Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). We decline to restrict the claim only to “multi-fill” deposition. slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “2 We determine the preamble is not limiting because it does not recite essential structure or steps, nor is it necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Group, LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 1367 (quoting Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). To the contrary, the claim body defines a structurally complete invention and the preamble merely states the purpose of the invention, which is to fill food product drafts into packages. See id. (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Even assuming the preamble is limiting, Petitioner has shown it is taught by the prior art and Patent Owner does not dispute this evidence.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 7,533,513 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,533,513
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2021 · IPR2019-01195 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13 and 14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kim; claims 17, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Kim and Lee because the proposed combination was inadequately explained.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “’026 patent would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, plus at least two years of experience in integrated circuit design, or alternatively a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of experience in integrated circuit design. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 49). In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art 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), and, therefore, preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 15. Neither Patent Owner, in its Response, nor Dr. Annavaram, in his declaration, proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, Patent Owner states that “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s stated skill level for this response” (PO Resp. 26), and Dr. Annavaram similarly states that “[f]or the purpose of this declaration, I adopt Dr. Harris’ definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” (Ex. 2009 ¶ 24). Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Based on the complete record, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, plus at least two years of experience in integrated circuit design, or alternatively a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of experience in integrated circuit design. Inst. Dec. 15; see Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 49).” slip op. at 10

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

    “To the extent Patent Owner argues that these particularized selection clauses recited in different claims must have the same or similar meaning because they all use the word “selecting” (see PO Resp. 28–29), we disagree with Patent Owner. See IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We caution that claim language must be construed in the context of the claim in which it appears. Extracting a single word from a claim divorced from the surrounding limitations can lead construction astray. Claim language must be construed in the claim in which it appears.” (emphasis added)). The selection clauses recited in these claims are plainly different on the face of the claims when considering the material differences in the claim language set forth above. According the same meaning to the limitations that recite “select . . . based on” indicators, “select . . . when” certain conditions are met, and “select . . . out of a group” of values would be improper because it would blur the material differences in the claim language recited expressly in the claims. Instead, we interpret the selection clauses recited in the challenged claims “in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears” and “in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. In other words, we do not construe the single word “selecting” in isolation, but, rather, interpret the full selection clauses recited in the challenged claims in the context of the entire patent. Claim 13 recites “selecting, by the control circuit, a value of a control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator.” In our view, the plain meaning of this limitation is clear on the face of the claim—a value of a control signal is selected based on two indicators, the mode indicator and the leakage indicator.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Tr. 47:7–23. Because the output of Kim’s NAND gates will be different depending on the value of Kim’s memory cells C1–CN allowed to “pass through,” we agree with Petitioner that the value of Kim’s memory cells C1– CN (the claimed “leakage indicator”) “plays a role” in deciding what the output of Kim’s NAND gates (the claimed “value of the control signal”) will be. Moreover, Patent Owner acknowledged that the output of Kim’s NAND gate is determined based on the inputs to the NAND gates (i.e., the sleep signal input and the memory cell signal input). JUDGE CHUNG: But, knowing a little bit about how a NAND gate works, isn’t it the case that the input to the NAND gates, G1 through GN, with the input of the sleep signal and the C1 through CN signal, isn’t it the case that input to the NAND gate determines what the output is? MS. ZHONG: Okay. So any logic gate, the output will depend on the input. That’s for sure. Tr. 44:18–25; but see id. at 45:3–10 (stating that even if the “output is in control of the input, . . . that does not mean the selection is based on that input”). Thus, we find that Kim’s NAND gate (the claimed “control circuit”) operates to determine its output (the claimed “value of the control signal”) based on its input of the sleep signal (the claimed “mode indicator”) and the memory cell value input (the claimed “leakage indicator”). As discussed in Section III.B, the Specification indicates that “select[ing] the value of the control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator” recited in claim 13 is synonymous to determining the value based on the recited indicators. See Ex. 1101, 4:4–11. Thus, the evidence of record shows that Kim teaches “selecting, by the control circuit, a value of a control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator,” as recited in claim 13.” slip op. at 44

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence. First, although Petitioner proposes “[s]ubstituting Lee’s inputs of leakage current and temperature for generating a power gate control signal” (i.e., Lee’s “control signal (BIAS)”) for “Kim’s inputs of leakage current and other ‘stimuli’ for generating a power gate control signal” (Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 115)), neither Petitioner nor Dr. Harris explains adequately how they are proposing to “substitute” Kim’s control signal with Lee’s “control signal (BIAS).” For example, Figure A reproduced above does not show how Petitioner or Dr. Harris proposes to use Lee’s “control signal (BIAS)” in the proposed combination. Petitioner asserts that “[a]lthough Lee’s control signal is analog and Kim’s control signal is digital, it was well known to apply teachings in an analog domain to a digital domain, and conversions between analog and digital domains were easy to implement.” Pet. 66 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 121; Ex. 1115). Dr. Harris similarly states that Figures A and B show examples of obvious ways to use in Kim’s system Lee’s teaching of setting conductance of the array based on temperature. A POSA would have found both of these ways obvious. That Lee uses an analog control signal and Kim uses a digital control signal would have presented no obstacle to a POSA. . . . That is, converting analog circuit elements and signals to digital was well known long before the ’026 patent. Ex. 1102 ¶ 121 (emphases added) (citing (Ex. 1115) (“Analog-to-digital converters (ADC’s) are ubiquitous, critical components of software radio and other signal processing systems.”)). But Dr. Harris does not explain adequately how “to use in Kim’s system” the digitized BIAS signal of Lee. See id. The only additional input signal shown in Figure A compared to Figure 4 of Kim is the temperature line that has the value of 0 when the temperature is cold and the value of 1 when the temperature is hot. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 116 (Fig. A). There is no explanation of how the modified teaching of the BIAS signal of Lee (i.e., modified or converted to a digital signal) would have worked in the proposed combination of Figure A.” slip op. at 69

  Patent outcomesUS 8,081,026 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,081,026
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2021 · IPR2019-01194 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Kim and Lee under § 103; Petitioner did not prove claims 4, 5, and 7 unpatentable because the combination was not adequately supported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “determine that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that the combination of Kim and Lee teaches “a mode indicator generator for generating a mode indicator that indicates a desired mode of the power gated circuit,” as recited in claim 1, and has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning for combining Kim and Lee to arrive at the subject matter of this claim limitation. c. Conclusion on Claim 1” slip op. at 64

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “F. Testimonial Evidence Petitioner relies on two Declarations from David Harris, Ph.D. in” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 8,081,026 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,081,026
• Clearone, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2020 · IPR2019-00683 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–33, and 35–40 are unpatentable; claims 6 and 34 were not shown unpatentable. The motion to amend was granted for substitute claims 57–67.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “establish that it is entitled to the relief requested—namely, that the material sought to be excluded is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s Motion is dismissed as moot, and Patent Owner’s Motion is denied-in-part and dismissed-in-part.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelOther

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art To establish the level of ordinary skill in the art, we look to various” slip op. at 19

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

    “For the foregoing reasons, we determine the term “rotationally offset” slip op. at 23

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

    “date it becomes publicly accessible. In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “Whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication under § 102 is a legal conclusion based on underlying fact findings.” Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “A reference is considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Id.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 9,565,493 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,565,493
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01033 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and claims 1 and 17 are obvious over Bednar and Gunther; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,004,922 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’922 patent”). VLSI Technology LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims. Paper 17 (“Inst. Dec.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or an equivalent subject), together with three years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits.” Inst. Dec. 8–9; see Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 9

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

    “construction of “memory device,” specifically whether it encompasses a latch. Neither party argues that “memory device” is expressly defined in the ’922 patent. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controls. And, the standard under which we construe the term is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” slip op. at 45

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 17 is anticipated by Bednar, and (2) claims 1 and 17 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar and Gunther. For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) claim 1 is anticipated by Bednar or (2) claims 4–6, 18, and 19 would have been obvious over the combination of Bednar, Gunther, and Willingham. The chart below summarizes our conclusions.” slip op. at 91

  Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,004,922
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01144 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 7, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Bednar and Gunther; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or an equivalent subject), together with three years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits.” Inst. Dec. 8; see Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “construction is erroneous. Accordingly, because the ’922 patent defines “power island,” we maintain and reaffirm that “power island” means a “group of components with similar power requirements.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “not to expressly construe “conversion controller” was erroneous or that an express construction is required to resolve any dispute between the parties. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that because the construction of “conversion controller” does not resolve a controversy in the matter before us, we decline to construe it expressly.” slip op. at 13

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

    “construction of “memory device,” specifically whether it encompasses a latch. Neither party argues that “memory device” is expressly defined in the ’922 patent. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controls. And, the standard under which we construe the term is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” slip op. at 86

  Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,004,922
• Wabco Holdings Inc. / Laydon Composites Ltd. v. Transtex Composites Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 10, 2020 · IPR2018-01319 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–11, and 15–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Layfield and Rinard; claims 2–4, 12–14, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Micklow does not explain how or why he proposes a different level of ordinary skill in the art as compared to the level proposed by Petitioner and preliminarily adopted in our Decision on Institution. See generally id. ¶¶ 28–31. Additionally, neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Micklow argues that the difference in the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art affects the outcome of this proceeding; Dr. Micklow, in fact, states the contrary—that his opinions are the same under either level of skill. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 31.7 Nothing in the full record is sufficient to persuade us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm our preliminary finding that the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been “a bachelor’s degree in mechanics, aeronautics, materials, or a related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years of experience in the development of components of vehicles, or an equivalent amount of relevant work or research experience.” Inst. Dec. 10–11; see Pet. 10.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Turning to Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1018), Petitioner asserts testing of commercial versions of the Layfield fairing illustrates what one skilled in the art would have understood from Layfield itself, namely that the Layfield strut is adapted to sustain an elastic deformation when a load is applied to the resilient strut when the skirt panel moves away from the configuration reducing air drag about the trailer and to self-recover the resilient strut original shape when the load is removed. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102–103).16 We afford this evidence little weight for several reasons. First, the video does not show the strut or the bending of a strut. See Ex. 1018. In fact, the only feature shown is a skirt panel attached to a trailer. that because thermoplastic material is more resilient than aluminum, we should adopt Petitioner’s argument. Pet. Reply 15–16 (citing Ex. 1058, 1– 12; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 77–82). We must base our decision in this case on the arguments and evidence presented. As explained above, the record before us has contradictory evidence in the form of Dr. Micklow’s testimony that was not before the examiner. 16 Petitioner does not cite Exhibit 1018 in the Petition, but instead cites to Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the exhibit. Id. Thus, from the video, it is unknown whether the skirt panel is attached to the trailer by one strut, multiple struts, or additional features. Second, Petitioner does not identify clearly how the tested system precisely corresponds to the teachings of Layfield. For example, Patent Owner raises a number of issues with the struts and panels in the video to which Petitioner provides either no response or an unconvincing response. For example, Patent Owner argues that each embodiment of Layfield uses trusses 36 to “interconnect each skirt panel and reinforce the panel assembly,” while it is asserted that the skirt panels in the video do not have trusses and are not interconnected. PO Resp. 26. Petitioner argues that the skirt panels in the video were made according to the teachings of Layfield and did include “integral vertical lateral side edges as the connecting mechanism for adjacent panels.” Pet. Reply 19 (citing Exs. 1018, 2003, 2005; Ex. 1004, 18:36–39; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 63–64; Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 37–38). Other than stating that the skirt panels have connecting mechanisms, Petitioner does not address the fact that the panels are not interconnected according to the teachings of Layfield, as Patent Owner correctly pointed out. See generally id. at 19–21.” slip op. at 28

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

    “components (see, e.g., id. at 17:1–10), Layfield does not contain any express disclosure concerning the flexibility of the struts. Nor does Layfield include any discussion about the desirability of strut flexibility. The closest Layfield comes to discussing flexibility of the struts is by frequently referring to the struts as “support struts” (see, e.g., id. at 18:40) and discussing the use of a “bracket means,” which is on the struts, to “rigidly secure” the skirt panels to the trailer (id. at 6:48–49). Further, Layfield’s detailed discussion of the embodiment of support strut 58 shown in Figure 10, reproduced below, highlights the bracing and reinforcement features. Figure 10, above, shows the construction detail of a support strut 58. Ex. 1004, 15:45. Specifically, Layfield discloses that strut 58 includes “a pair of spaced-apart vertical members 160, which are braced by horizontal cross-members 162” and “reinforcing rectangular lattice 170.” Id. at 15:46– 54. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Layfield does not expressly teach that the ‘support struts 58’ are ‘resilient.’” PO Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 148–149). We reiterate that Petitioner’s first challenge is based on anticipation. Thus, Petitioner must show that resilient struts are “either expressly or inherently described, in” Layfield. Verdegaal Bros. Inc., 814 F.2d at 631; see also PO Resp. 42. In its Reply Brief and at the oral hearing, Petitioner contends that its challenge is based on express disclosure, not inherency. See Pet. Reply 17–18; Tr. 9:21–11:4 (arguing that “this is not a case of inherency”). Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood, based upon Layfield’s express disclosures concerning the material, structure, and connection of the strut, that the Layfield strut is resilient and can sustain significant and substantial elastic deformation.” Pet. Reply 18 (citing REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj, 841 F.3d 954, 960–61 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Whether we analyze Petitioner’s argument based on express disclosure or inherency, we reach the same result. To begin, although we agree with Petitioner that a prior art reference “need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test” (Pet. Reply 17 (quoting In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009))), there is no express statement that Layfield’s strut is resilient or otherwise exhibits a characteristic synonymous with resiliency. Additionally, we do not agree that Petitioner’s reliance on the thermoplastic materials, disclosed by Layfield for construction of the strut, establishes whether the strut is resilient and capable of elastic deformation. The evidence submitted by the parties is contradictory as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Layfield’s struts to be resilient based on the material alone.15 Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 74–82 15 Petitioner also points to a finding by the examiner, during prosecution of the ’017 patent application, that an aluminum strut was resilient, and argues (Mr. Tres opining as to the materials disclosed by Layfield), with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 160–164 (Dr. Micklow contradicting Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the materials disclosed by Layfield). Further, the evidence is contradictory as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the design of Layfield’s strut, specifically the taper design and mechanism by which the strut connects to the trailer I-beam, that the strut is resilient. Compare Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 83–90 (Mr. Tres’s testimony regarding the design and connection mechanism), with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 165–175 (Dr. Micklow’s contradictory testimony). Turning to Petitioner’s video (Ex. 1018), Petitioner asserts testing of commercial versions of the Layfield fairing illustrates what one skilled in the art would have understood from Layfield itself, namely that the Layfield strut is adapted to sustain an elastic deformation when a load is applied to the resilient strut when the skirt panel moves away from the configuration reducing air drag about the trailer and to self-recover the resilient strut original shape when the load is removed. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102–103).16 We afford this evidence little weight for several reasons. First, the video does not show the strut or the bending of a strut. See Ex. 1018. In fact, the only feature shown is a skirt panel attached to a trailer.” slip op. at 26

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

    “Additionally, Patent Owner similarly contends that the modifications proposed are redundant of Layfield’s “flexible lower panel 20,” which already “allow[s] flexing when impacting a road object.” PO Resp. 59 (citing Ex. 1004, 14:13–18); see PO Sur-reply 26–27. We disagree. Again, the proposed modifications here are to Layfield’s struts. In the context of Petitioner’s anticipation challenge, we agreed with Patent Owner and found that Petitioner had not established sufficiently on the record that Layfield’s struts were resilient. See supra, § II.D.a.i., ii. Therefore, the proposed modification addressed here, to make Layfield’s struts resilient, does not duplicate the objective of Layfield’s flexible lower panel 20 at least because (a) Layfield’s struts are a different structure than lower panel 20 and (b) modification of Layfield’s struts would provide greater impact protection to other panels aside from just lower panel 20. See Pet. Reply 26–27 (One of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to do so because Rinard and Layfield both seek to provide fairing panels with ‘sufficient flexibility’ to bend when encountering objects.” (citing Ex. 1004, 12:67– 13:4; Ex. 1006, 10:43–50; Ex. 1055 ¶ 47)). We determine that Petitioner has shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to look to other similar types of trailer components that are flexible to make further improvements to Layfield’s design. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). Third, Patent Owner contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would not have a reasonable expectation of success at achieving the claimed technology by looking to the vertical supports of Rinard’s air scoops to modify the Layfield skirt panels 10 and support struts 58.” PO Resp. 61 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 237–240). Patent Owner asserts that because Layfield’s upper skirt panels are rigid and non-moving one of ordinary skill in the art “would not reasonably expect the hypothetical modified panels (with their reinforcing trusses 36) to move.” Id. Patent Owner also argues that Rinard teaches “an upper skirt panel that is rigid and non-moving” and so it is not reasonable to expect modifying Layfield as proposed would somehow cause Layfield’s fixed skirt panels to be able to move as claimed. PO Sur-reply 27–28 (citations omitted). We disagree for the same reasons discussed above—namely, we find Layfield’s upper skirt panels to be resilient. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a resilient strut adapted as claimed by modifying Layfield’s strut in light of Rinard, for the reasons proposed by Petitioner. See Pet. Reply 27 (“Applying this solution to the Layfield skirt panel and struts would yield the predictable result of allowing the Layfield skirt panel 10 and struts 58 to absorb greater impacts without having to be repaired or replaced.” (citing Ex. 1021, 7–8, 11–12)).” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 8,449,017 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,449,017

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.