• Fedex Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 20, 2018 · IPR2017-00729 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Rappaport, Rappaport and DeLorme, or Rappaport and Wright; claims 18–24 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have held at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent, and two or more years of industry experience in the field of mobile communications, or the academic equivalent thereof.” Pet. 8. Petitioner bases its argument on the testimony and experience of Dr. Lavian. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 44–49). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s statement. See generally PO Resp. For the 3 The complete record does not include evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness or secondary considerations. reasons given by Petitioner (Pet. 8; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 44–49), we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Although Petitioner directs us to a portion of the ’581 Patent that Petitioner contends corresponds to the field management program, i.e., “Ex. 1001, 7:50–8:12” (Pet. 10), Petitioner does not identify teachings in Rappaport corresponding to the algorithm in the ’581 Patent, which includes “[t]he program would prompt the user for input of data related to the problem.” Ex. 1001, 7:54–55. Petitioner’s assertion that no substantial differences exist between “Rappaport’s memory, processor, and SitePlanner® program and the memory, processor, and field data management program” of the ’581 Patent is conclusory. Pet. 51. Although Petitioner includes references back to its contentions for other independent claims that do not require a prompt, Petitioner does not provide any explanation regarding these other teachings and the prompt requirement of claim 18. Id. As discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 7, Rappaport teaches repeating the cycle of making measurements, receiving optimized predictions, and reconfiguring the network. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 19:1–8. However, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that this teaching, or any other teaching in Rappaport, is the same or equivalent to a program that prompts the user to input data. Dr. Lavian’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶ 205) is conclusory and substantially the same as Petitioner’s contentions. Dr. Lavian testifies that the program in Rappaport when executed “is substantially equivalent” to that of the ’581 Patent. Id. Because Dr. Lavian does not disclose sufficiently the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based, including what portions of Rappaport are substantially equivalent to the prompt in the ’581 Patent, we give his testimony (Ex. 1006 ¶ 205) little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 45

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

    “Although Petitioner directs us to a portion of the ’581 Patent that Petitioner contends corresponds to the field management program, i.e., “Ex. 1001, 7:50–8:12” (Pet. 10), Petitioner does not identify teachings in Rappaport corresponding to the algorithm in the ’581 Patent, which includes “[t]he program would prompt the user for input of data related to the problem.” Ex. 1001, 7:54–55. Petitioner’s assertion that no substantial differences exist between “Rappaport’s memory, processor, and SitePlanner® program and the memory, processor, and field data management program” of the ’581 Patent is conclusory. Pet. 51. Although Petitioner includes references back to its contentions for other independent claims that do not require a prompt, Petitioner does not provide any explanation regarding these other teachings and the prompt requirement of claim 18. Id. As discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 7, Rappaport teaches repeating the cycle of making measurements, receiving optimized predictions, and reconfiguring the network. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 19:1–8. However, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that this teaching, or any other teaching in Rappaport, is the same or equivalent to a program that prompts the user to input data. Dr. Lavian’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶ 205) is conclusory and substantially the same as Petitioner’s contentions. Dr. Lavian testifies that the program in Rappaport when executed “is substantially equivalent” to that of the ’581 Patent. Id. Because Dr. Lavian does not disclose sufficiently the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based, including what portions of Rappaport are substantially equivalent to the prompt in the ’581 Patent, we give his testimony (Ex. 1006 ¶ 205) little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). In summary, Petitioner has not provided persuasive contentions identifying in Rappaport teachings for the “means for managing data collected at the field using the at least one handheld device responsive to program,” recited in claim 18. On this record, we are not persuaded Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 18 is unpatentable over Rappaport.” slip op. at 45

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

    “Petitioner has shown that all the limitations of claim 1 are taught in Rappaport’s description with respect to two consecutive figures, i.e., Figures 9 and 10. Rappaport’s Figures 9 and 10 both pertain to a system with a handheld device that transmits field data to a remote server, consistent with Dr. Lavian’s testimony. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 77, 80 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002, (57), 1:12–18, 4:41–5:31, 18:7–18, 18:64–19:8, Figs. 1, 3, 9, 10). Even to the extent that these disclosures are of two separate embodiments, “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Consistent with Dr. Lavian’s testimony (Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 80–85), we find that it at least would have been obvious and predictable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the functionality disclosed with respect to Figures 9 and 10 into a single handheld device that transmits measured field data to a remote server so that the technician could optimize on-site and on the fly. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 18:7–18, 18:33–48, 18:64–19:8. Rappaport depicts handheld devices in Figures 1, 3, 9, and 10 and refers to each device as a “handheld computer.” See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 6:27–58, 9:26–36, 14:54–15:3, 16:56–65, 18:7–18, 18:64–19:8, Figs. 1, 3, 9, 10. Dr. Sharony’s testimony that the proposed combination is impractical because “the exemplary Palm IIIc handheld of Rappaport . . . only had one serial port” (Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 53–59) does not take into account the full disclosure of Rappaport including “many other portable handheld computers” that “could be used while staying within the spirit of the present invention” such as cellular phones, other PDAs running PalmOS and pocket or tablet personal computers (PCs) running the Windows OS or “another powerful OS.” See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 6:27–58; see also id. at 19:9–12 (“[T]hose skilled in the art will recognize that the invention can be practiced with considerable variation”).6 Additionally, Dr. Sharony’s testimony that the measurement device and the interface box must be connected “at the same time” (Ex. 2008 ¶ 53) is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not require simultaneous collection and transmission of field data.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,494,581 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,494,581
• Daimler AG / Daimler North America Corporation et al. v. Stragent, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2018 · IPR2017-00458 · APJ Carl L Silverman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 over Miesterfeld, Stewart, and Wense; claims 1, 3–7, and 20 are also unpatentable over Posadas, Stewart, and Wense.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Patent Owner proposes that the term, “sharing the information,” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, which Patent Owner argues is “completing delivery to a destination” as information is not “shared” until the information has completed delivery to a destination. PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner contends the claim language and the specification describe the actual delivery of information to the local bulletin board. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:27–31, 12:33–35). Petitioner contends Patent Owner’s proposed meaning is unreasonably narrow and proposes, instead, that the term “should be construed as ‘making the information available to another process,’ consistent with its plain meaning.” Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 29). Petitioner observes the challenged claims do not recite delivery into a second process, and 7 Petitioner refers to the ’843 patent; in context, it is clear the reference is intended to be to the ’705 patent. additionally notes claim 1 of the related ’843 patent merely requires “sharing the information” and it is not until dependent claim 16 of the ’843 patent that “sharing” further includes “providing the information.” Id. Petitioner contends the doctrine of claim differentiation further supports its proposed claim construction. Id. Petitioner contends this claim construction is consistent with the Specification in which information is shared by placing the information on a bulletin board. Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 32). We agree with Petitioner’s claim construction analysis and agree that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sharing the information” is “making the information available to another process.”” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art “would have at least an undergraduate degree in Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or equivalent degree, and at least two years relevant experience in industry.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 48. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Jeffrey A. Miller, Ph.D, asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least the qualifications of or equivalent to either a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with course work or research in embedded networking technologies or an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer engineering with at least two years of relevant work experience in industry. Ex. 2004 ¶ 12. Based upon our review of the ’705 patent and the prior art of record, we find Dr. Miller’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art reasonable, and adopt it for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree that Stewart’s memory management techniques are fundamental techniques applicable to shared memory environments and Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In particular, we credit Dr. Koopman’s testimony as being more persuasive than Dr. Miller’s testimony. See Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 59– 62; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97, 98; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30–39.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Patent Owner contends there is no basis for combining Posadas and Stewart to arrive at the invention of claim 1. PO Resp. 27–30 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30, 33). According to Patent Owner, Petitioner provides no explanation why a skilled artisan would have combined Posadas’s blackboard system with Stewart’s non-blackboard system. Id. (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 34– 39). Petitioner contends a blackboard is simply a specific type of shared memory and the operations described by Stewart are fundamental features that could apply to any shared memory environment, e.g., determining whether memory is available before writing is a basic process that is not specific to any memory architecture. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 57–60). According to Petitioner, Stewart’s spin locks were well–known, simple tools to access shared memory and application to Posadas would have been straightforward. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 57–59; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97–99). We agree that Stewart’s memory management techniques are fundamental techniques applicable to shared memory environments and Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. In particular, we credit Dr. Koopman’s testimony as being more persuasive than Dr. Miller’s testimony. See Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 59– 62; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 97, 98; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 30–39.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,209,705 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,209,705
• F5 Networks, Inc. v. Radware, Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 23, 2018 · IPR2017-00124 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–15, 17, and 19–24 are unpatentable; claims 5 and 18 are not. Substitute claim 29 is allowed, while claims 25–28 are denied for lack of written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “V.CONCLUSION Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 6–15, 17, and 19–24 are unpatentable, but not claims 5 and 18. We grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend to replace claim 13 with substitute claim 29, and deny the motion to replace claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 with substitute claims 25–28. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied. VI. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 4, 6–15, 17, and 19–24 are unpatentable; FURTHER ORDERED, based on a preponderance of the evidence,” slip op. at 69

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “were associated with ranges of IP addresses and, thus, “[o]ne of ordinary skill would have understood that modifying the source IP address of an outgoing packet to match an external IP address corresponding to the selected ISP WAN link necessarily entailed selecting an IP address from a range of IP addresses associated with that ISP.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 167–173). Dr. A. Rubin, however, only testified that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that ISPs were typically associated with a range of IP addresses.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 172 (emphasis added). Although this might be sufficient to establish that an ISP in Veerina probably would have been associated with a range of IP addresses, it is not sufficient to show that such an ISP necessarily would have been associated with a range of IP addresses. Additional testimony of Dr. A. Rubin makes clear that he is speculating as to how Veerina’s system could have operated rather than how it necessarily must have operated: one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that modifying the source IP address of an outgoing packet to reflect an external IP address corresponding to the selected WAN Link for an ISP could involve selecting from a range of IP addresses associated with that ISP.” slip op. at 29

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Guerin, defines a person of ordinary skill in the art to have “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science or computer engineer[ing] (or equivalent experience) with several years of experience in design and deployment of Internet networking technology,” and “several years of experience with the operation and management of Internet networking technology and systems as well.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 16. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s definition of a skilled artisan. Dec. 12–13. Neither party challenges that determination, and we maintain it on the complete record.” slip op. at 37

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

    “Patent Owner contends that “weighted function of at least one of,” recited in claims 6, 9, and 21, means a “function in which one or more attributes is given a weight.” PO Resp. 9–10. Patent Owner argues that this is the construction given by a district court to “weighed function of at least one of,” a similar term appearing in a claim of a related patent. Id. at 9 (quoting Ex. 1011, 14–15). Petitioner contends that this term need not be construed, but does not oppose the district court construction or offer an alternative. Reply 2. For purposes of this decision, we adopt the district court construction. B. Anticipation by Veerina Petitioner argues that claims 1, 2, 4–9, 13–15, and 17–21 are” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 9,231,853 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,231,853
• Bose Corporation v. Freebit AsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 18, 2018 · IPR2017-00130 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 7–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Berg, Varming, and Aber; claim 6 is unpatentable as obvious over those references and Marshall.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner and argues that a skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree or master’s degree in audiology or hearing science and at least three years of experience with developing earphone and hearing instrument products.” PO Resp. 26. We do not discern a meaningful difference between the parties’ proposals, and the parties do not contend that any such difference has an impact on this proceeding. In any case, our findings and conclusions are the same under either party’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner’s theory of obviousness, however, is that the prior art renders the challenged claims obvious even under Patent Owner’s narrower constructions. Pet. 37–39; Reply 4. For example, Petitioner argues: What they are saying is that the curvature, this new curvature that they have put into that C-shaped pad has to itself engage and fit closely, in other words touch the concha of the ear. We think that this is a narrow interpretation. When you look at the claim language, we are not really seeing support, Your Honor, for that particular narrow construction. And yet, what we are saying is that nonetheless, if we were to adopt that narrow construction, the prior art renders it obvious. Tr. 7:8–15. Petitioner does not have a theory of obviousness under broader constructions, should we find that the challenged claims are not rendered obvious under Patent Owner’s proposed constructions. Reply 4; Tr. 7:16– 9:2. Accordingly, we evaluate Petitioner’s allegations under Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, and need not determine whether the proper constructions should be broader to resolve the parties’ dispute. See 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 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “one problem with each of Mauney, Feldman, and Berg, “Varming does not identify the protrusion intended to penetrate into the ‘void or cavity’ of a user’s ear as a drawback of any one of these three devices.” Reply 6–7. We agree with Petitioner. As to Mauney and Feldman, Varming identifies protrusions that enter the ear canal as problematic because they block ambient sound and perspiration. Ex. 1005, 1:23–27, 2:1–6. As to Berg, Varming states that Berg’s large C-shaped pad interferes with the crus of helix, at least for those users with “a distinct and emphasized Crus of Helix,” causing discomfort or preventing the device from staying fixed in the ear. Id. at 2:20–23. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Varming does not identify interference with the crus of helix at the front of the ear as a problem in any of the three references it discusses in its background. Petitioner also points out that “Varming teaches quite the opposite, because its own device ‘penetrates’ into the void or cavity at the front of a user’s ear.” Reply 9–10 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:8–12 (“a first one of the pads being shaped and positioned to fit into the area of the Cymba Concha by penetration from the area below the Inferior Crux of the Antihelix and above the Crus of Helix”), 8:23–25 (“The pads are formed as one penetrating the area in the Cymba Concha from the area below the inferior Crux of the Antihelix and above the Crus of Helix.”)). After considering Varming’s background discussion and the description of its own invention, we are not persuaded that Varming’s discussion of Berg’s interference with the crus of helix refers to interference at the front of the ear. Rather, Varming clearly describes a device that protrudes into the void or cavity at the front of the ear, a fact that undermines Patent Owner’s argument and the testimony of Dr. Staab.” slip op. at 30

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

    “As noted in the Institution Decision, however, Petitioner does not propose simply incorporating groove 18 from Aber into Berg’s C-shaped earpiece. Dec. 22. Cf. In re Mouttet, 686 F. 3d 1322, 1332 (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”). Rather, Petitioner argues that a skilled artisan would have modified Berg’s C-shaped earpiece by adding a groove at the location of the gap specified in Varming. Pet. 31–32. As Dr. Casali observes, “Aber teaches a known alternative feature for accommodating ridges of the outer ear, which include the extension of the crus of helix.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. According to Dr. Casali, “as a result of this modification, the concha-facing contact surface of earpiece 10 would substantially conform to the concha and enable the ear unit to fit closely against the concha when the ear unit is positioned into the ear.” Id. ¶ 71. We find Dr. Casali’s testimony credible and persuasive. As Dr. Casali notes (Ex. 1003 ¶ 71), Berg states that groove 18 partially embracing the crus of helix “assist[s] in firmly retaining the audiophone in place in the ear” and provides “a much greater area of contact between the cap 14 and the ear than is commonly found in devices of this kind, which results in less strain on the ear.” Ex. 1006, 1:75–83. We find that Aber provides a teaching that a groove embracing a ridge of the ear helps hold a device in place in the ear and find that this teaching would have been applicable to Berg’s earpiece. Because the extension of the crus of helix at the location of Varming’s gap is less pronounced than the crus of helix at the front of the ear, a groove at Varming’s gap providing the benefits expressly specified by Aber would be correspondingly less pronounced. Ex. 1003 ¶ 71; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 22–23.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,976,995 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,976,995
• Emerson Electric Co. v. Sipco, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2018 · IPR2017-00001 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham; Petitioner did not show claim 8 unpatentable on that ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction against the prior art than it does to construction of the term itself. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, like Petitioner’s, does not, on its face, exclude RF protocol conversion. In this respect, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is improperly attempting to read in additional limitations that go beyond claim 5’s broad recitation of a “transmitter . . . configured to encode the electrical signal.” See Paper 45, 3. As Petitioner further observes, the Specification of the ’661 patent refers interchangeably to data controller 324 (shown in Figures 3A–3E, not reproduced here) as “data formatter 324” (emphasis added), which “operates to form concise data packets.” Id.; Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 49–51. Petitioner’s proposed construction is thus consistent with the Specification. Patent Owner agrees that data controller 324 “encodes a physical condition into a function code,” but emphasizes that it does so “before getting converted by the RF transmitter.” Paper 44, 3. The distinction Patent Owner relies on to exclude RF protocol conversion from its proposed construction would improperly narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding a limitation that has no express basis in the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969) (“Nevertheless, ‘reading a claim in the light of the specification,’ to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim.”). Having thus considered the parties’ positions, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “encoded electrical signal” as “coded information representing the electrical signal generated by the sensor.” We address application of this construction to the prior art in the analysis below.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner does not advocate for a specific level of skill in its Response, but its expert, Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D., articulates a level of skill similar to Petitioner’s proposal. Ex. 2009 ¶ 75. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth opines that a person of ordinary skill “would have the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution (usually denoted as a B.S. degree) in computer science, computer engineering or the equivalent and experience with, or exposure to, computer networks and routing.” Id. In addition, according to Dr. Almeroth, a person of ordinary skill “would also have approximately two years of professional experience with computer networking, routing, and wireless networks. Id. And “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” Id. Given the similarity of articulations by the respective experts, and because our Decision does not depend on nuanced distinctions of the level of skill in the art, we adopt Dr. Almeroth’s more detailed articulation, but include electrical engineering as an additional alternative educational background, as indicated by Mr. Kinney.” slip op. at 15

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We thus agree with Patent Owner that the rationale articulated by Petitioner is conclusory, and insufficiently supported. PO Resp. 30–31. On the record before us, it is more reasonable to construe “the transceiver identification information” as referring to something other than the identification information for the at least one wireless transmitter. For example, Patent Owner contends that “[o]ne skilled in the art, reading the plain text of claims 5 and 8, would easily recognize that the ‘transceiver’ referred to in claim 8 is the transmitter in claim 5 that is configured to both send and receive signals.” Id. at 33. Patent Owner provides support for this reading both by identifying disclosure in the Specification of the ’661 patent consistent with its position, and through testimony by its expert, Dr. Almeroth. Id. at 33–36 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3C, 3D, col. 6, ll. 3–8, col. 9, ll. 53–56, col. 10, ll. 32–34; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 125–132). For example, Dr. Almeroth testifies that Mason’s AMR server “at most would need only some meter identification number and a meter reading.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 134. We credit this testimony, as well as Dr. Almeroth’s assertion that “[t]ransceiver identification information is extraneous for the needs of the AMR server in Cunningham and Mason.” Id. Ultimately, we need not resolve the construction issues, and the issue of whether claim 8 is indefinite is not before us. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (limiting inter partes review to “a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103”). It is sufficient for us to determine whether Petitioner has put forth sufficient evidence to meet its burden of establishing that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combination of Mason, Shuey, and Cunningham. In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Petitioner has not.” slip op. at 34

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

    “c. “one or more additional wireless transmitters” Third, Petitioner combines the teachings of Shuey with those of Mason in addressing claim 5’s recitation of “one or more additional wireless transmitters.” Id. at 62–63. The claim requires that each such additional wireless transmitter is “electrically interfaced with a sensor and configured to receive the RF signal and retransmit the RF signal,” i.e., to act as a repeater. Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 22–24. As discussed above, Mason discloses that meter 12D is considered “inaccessible” with respect to node 18, and that another meter within the network may act as a repeater so that the inaccessible meter may still be contacted. Id. at col. 6, ll. 27–35. Petitioner cites Shuey for details regarding the information included in retransmission by meters acting as repeaters, and provides sufficient reason to effect the combination in light of Mason’s explicit reference to Shuey: “A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate into Mason’s system Shuey’s teaching of a repeater that retransmits all of the claimed information, because Mason explicitly notes that Shuey’s system is a system for which Mason’s invention is particularly suited.” Pet. 58–59 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 6, ll. 35–38; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 110–112). Petitioner’s reasoning is thus supported by sufficient rational underpinning. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,468,661 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,468,661
• Blue Coat Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2017 · IPR2016-01444 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Rehearing

  Granted Blue Coat’s rehearing request and instituted review of claims 1, 4–6, 9, 12–14, 17, 24, 35, and 37; the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted § 103 grounds.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “reexamination proceeding. Of particular relevance, the reexamination concluded with a Reexamination Certificate issued on November 28, 2016, including a claim for the benefit of the November 8, 1996 filing date of U.S. Provisional Appl. No. 60/030,639 (“the ’639 provisional application”). Ex. 3006 at [60]. In denying the Petition, the Prior Decision noted that “Petitioner has taken no steps to explain or respond to the effect of these developments on its argument.” Dec. 7. This remains true. Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioner that our Prior Decision gave insufficient consideration to the Petition’s assertion that “U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 [(“the ’926 patent”), i.e., an intermediate patent in the priority chain of the ’086 patent] fails to claim priority to the ’639 provisional application and instead the earliest priority document cited in the ’926 patent is [the ’194 patent].” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1012, col. 1, ll. 8–32); see Req. Reh’g 4–5, 6 n.4, 7–9. For a claim of a patent to be entitled to the effective filing date of an earlier filed application, each application in the priority chain must refer to the earlier filed application. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc., 609 F.3d 1345, 1350–52 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Rehearing Request and proceed to the merits of the Petition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “a formally defined safety policy” and allows checking “with certainty, that the proof is valid and hence the foreign code is safe to execute.” Ex. 1004, 107. Thus, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand Necula to teach that its proof-carrying code adds to the foreign code, consistent with the construction of “append” that we apply herein, and Petitioner articulates sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to apply that teaching to Swimmer’s representation of DSP data. See Pet. 46–49. This is not an instance, for example, in which Petitioner relies on a characterization of the problem provided by the patent to derive its reasoning. Cf., e.g., Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Indeed, Patent Owner’s contention that “the storage of the DSP in a database is one of the key features that distinguishes the ‘086 Patent over the prior art” dilutes the strength of its argument. The contrary positions of the parties’ declarants in their testimonial evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact, which we resolve in the light most favorable to Petitioner for purposes of this Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing also with respect to these elements, and that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of claims 1 and 9. See infra Section II.E.10 (discussing limits in our weighing of Patent Owner’s Secondary Considerations evidence in this Preliminary Proceeding).” slip op. at 21

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “be considered under 35 U.S.C. § 312 because Petitioner has failed to name all real parties in interest, as required by the statute.” Prelim. Resp. 9. The parties agree that, on June 12, 2016, Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) announced that it was acquiring Petitioner. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 9. The Petition discloses that “[t]he transaction is expected to close in the third quarter of 2016,” and that “[a]s of the filing date of this petition the transaction has not been executed.” Pet. 13. The Petition further represents that “Symantec has not controlled or had the ability to control the filing of this petition, whether through funding or strategy.” Id. As noted above, Petitioner expressly identified Symantec as a real party in interest before any decision on institution of an inter partes review was made. Paper 8, 2. Patent Owner contends that “Symantec had control over the filing of the Petition during the period between the announcement of the acquisition and the closing of the acquisition,” which it asserts occurred on August 1, 2016. Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner also contends that it “understands from the underlying litigation that ‘Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’ no longer exists 1 A petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim of priority for the ’926 patent, claiming the benefit of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 08/790,097 which was filed January 29, 1997, was dismissed by the Office on June 13, 2017. Exs. 1027, 3007. A renewed petition was filed on June 16, 2017. Ex. 3008. At this time, the Office has not ruled on the renewed petition, and that pending petition accordingly does not affect our determination of the challenged claims’ effective filing date for purposes of this Decision. as an entity, or at least goes by ‘Blue Coat Systems LLC’ for at least the last two months.” Id. at 10. We have reviewed the evidence provided by Patent Owner and find it insufficient to support Patent Owner’s allegation that Petitioner has failed to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a) or 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3). That evidence is, at best, suggestive regarding an issue that is not jurisdictional. Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., Case IPR2015-00739, slip op. (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (Paper 38) (precedential).” slip op. at 9

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

    “1. “Downloadable” Every challenged independent claim recites a “Downloadable,” and Petitioner contends that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ‘downloadable’ includes ‘an executable application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on a destination computer.’” Pet. 15. Petitioner’s proposed construction parallels a statement made in the Specification of the ’194 patent. Ex. 1012, col. 1, ll. 44–47. Patent Owner “does not dispute” this proposed construction, which we adopt for purposes of this Decision. Prelim. Resp. 5. 2. “database” Challenged independent claim 42 recites “a database of Downloadable security profiles.” Petitioner contends that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ‘database’ includes ‘a collection of interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve one or more applications.’” Pet. 15. Patent Owner also “does not dispute” this proposed construction, but argues that “the practical import of Petitioner’s proposed construction for the term ‘database,’ is that log files, such as Swimmer’s audit trail, do not fall within the scope of the claims.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6. That is, Patent Owner contends that “logging functionality is distinct from storing in a database, which allows DSP to be efficiently retrieved from the database,” as compared with the “record-keeping” functionality of an “event log.” Id. at 7. Patent Owner’s argument was considered by the panel in IPR2015- 01892, which concluded that, “[t]o the extent that construction would exclude a log file consisting of an ‘unstructured collection of data on a computer,’ . . . [an] unstructured log file would not be a database,” but the construction does not “necessarily exclude[] all log files from being databases.” 1892 Dec. 16 (emphasis in original). We agree with the reasoning expressed in the Final Written Decision of IPR2015-01892. Id. at 12–17. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,079,086
• LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 16, 2017 · IPR2015-01983 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, 7–12, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over both asserted combinations; claim 2 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art With regard to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner asserts: “A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the [’]671 patent is a person who has, through formal education or extensive practical experience, the equivalent of a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science or Electrical Engineering and 2–3 years of experience in graphical user interfaces.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner does not explicitly take a position on the level of ordinary skill and does not dispute Petitioner’s articulation. Petitioner’s assertion is supported by the testimony of Dr. Rhyne. We accept and adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art. C.” slip op. at 12

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

    “A ‘remote information resource’ contains information of interest to a potentially large number of users and is remotely accessible over a wireless connection. Web and WAP sites are examples of remote information resources. PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:15–19). The above-quoted text first provides a definition, and then identifies examples. Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Rhyne, agrees that the above-quoted text in the specification functionally defines a remote information resource and provides examples. Ex. 2004, 21:15–22:12. In accordance with the definition given in the specification, we construe “remote information resource” as: a remotely wirelessly accessible location or object that contains information of interest to a potentially large number of users.3 3 Patent Owner correctly notes that a remote information resource is a container of information and is not the information itself. PO Resp. 13.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner argues that in the context of claims 1 and 12, which add the language “an end-user is enabled to” just prior to the phrase “select the remote information resource” (claim 1) and the phrase “select a remote information resource” (claim 12), claims 1 and 12 should be construed to be limited to “direct” selection of the remote information resource. PO Resp. 13–15. The argument is unpersuasive. The presence of the phrase “an end- user is enabled to” in claims 1 and 12 does not restrict the selection by the end-user to the direct approach. The end-user still can make its selection indirectly, such as by selecting a default profile, as is described in the specification and discussed above. We construe “select [a/the] remote information resource” broadly, but reasonably, to mean “select a remote information resource either directly or indirectly.” We also clarify that indirect selection, in that context, means a selection made on the basis of information provided by the user that does not itself identify the remote information resource.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Ex. 1001, 1:28–36. Citing to the first two sentences in the above-quoted text, and without explanation, Petitioner proposes a construction for “idle screen” that is differently worded from that stated above. Pet. 12. It is inappropriate to rephrase the first two sentences in the above-quoted definition provided in the specification. The meaning of “idle screen” is provided in the specification by the entirety of the above-quoted text and needs no further construction.4 4. “mobile communication device” and “mobile device” Independent claims 1 and 12 each recite the term “mobile communication device,” and independent claims 15 and 16 each recite the term “mobile device.” Petitioner asserts that both terms should be construed to include a portable electronic device with communications capabilities. Pet. 11. Patent Owner asserts that the term “mobile communication device” should be construed as wireless mobile communication device, and the term “mobile device” should be construed as wireless mobile device. PO Resp. 12–13. Because the prior art in the involved grounds of unpatentability accounts for a wireless communication capability of a portable device, we discern no need to specify any express construction for either “mobile communication device” or “mobile device.” 5. “a source selected by a user” Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “in which the information is from a source selected by the user.” According to Patent Owner, the phrase requires “direct” selection of a source of information. PO Resp. 19. We will address Patent Owner’s position in the context of analysis 4 The last sentence, “Personal computers have no equivalent to an idle screen,” indicates only that the ’671 patent defines “idle screen” to exclude anything on a personal computer, such as a screen saver. It acts as a disclaimer, and does not mean a screen saver on a personal computer is not reasonably pertinent to what the ’671 patent regards as an idle screen. By adopting the definition in the specification, we are not finding that teachings about screen savers on a personal computer may not be relied on to render the claimed invention obvious. of claim 2 below. It is not necessary, however, to provide an express construction of the phrase. Note, however, a “source” is not the same as a “remote information resource.” A “remote information resource” is specially defined in the specification and construed above. B.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,498,671 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,498,671
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2017 · IPR2015-01611 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 91 and 92 are unpatentable over Kniffin; the petitioner did not show claims 26, 31, 38, 42, 43, 48, 60, 63, 64, 73, 74, 85, 138, 139, and 143 unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “second signal, wherein the second signal is at least one of generated by and transmitted from a second control device.” Ex. 1001, 80:9–10; see also id. 83:25–26 (similar language in claim 42), 85:15–18 (claim 48), 99:13–14 (claim 138). Thus, in each of independent claims 26, 42, 48, and 138, the first control device must respond to a signal from the second control device. Petitioner asserts that access control device 64 is the first control device and that clearinghouse 18 or 66 is the second control device. Pet. 13–14. Therefore, Petitioner must establish that Kniffin discloses that access control device 64 responds to a signal from the clearinghouse. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has a made a sufficient showing on this point.” slip op. at 13

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

    “second signal, wherein the second signal is at least one of generated by and transmitted from a second control device.” Ex. 1001, 80:9–10; see also id. 83:25–26 (similar language in claim 42), 85:15–18 (claim 48), 99:13–14 (claim 138). Thus, in each of independent claims 26, 42, 48, and 138, the first control device must respond to a signal from the second control device. Petitioner asserts that access control device 64 is the first control device and that clearinghouse 18 or 66 is the second control device. Pet. 13–14. Therefore, Petitioner must establish that Kniffin discloses that access control device 64 responds to a signal from the clearinghouse. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has a made a sufficient showing on this point.” slip op. at 13

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

    “have modified Kniffin to use the Internet because “conventional wisdom at the time of the effective filing date of the ’130 Patent was that the Internet was not secure and there were also many impediments on the use of the Internet.” PO Resp. 32. In support of this position, Patent Owner cites a 1996 Morgan Stanley “Internet Report” that noted concerns about security and potential limits to Internet access. Id. at 32–34 (citing Ex. 2005, 24).” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “have modified Kniffin to use the Internet because “conventional wisdom at the time of the effective filing date of the ’130 Patent was that the Internet was not secure and there were also many impediments on the use of the Internet.” PO Resp. 32. In support of this position, Patent Owner cites a 1996 Morgan Stanley “Internet Report” that noted concerns about security and potential limits to Internet access. Id. at 32–34 (citing Ex. 2005, 24).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 6,549,130 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,549,130
• Google, Inc. v. Personal Audio LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2016 · IPR2015-00846 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 7,509,178 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,509,178
• Qualcomm Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-01577 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 14, 16, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are unpatentable; claims 3, 15, and 27 were not shown unpatentable, with the specified-vote limitation not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “sequence.” Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding, attests that the phrase is “a well-understood term of art.” Ding Decl. ¶ 35 (citing Ex. 1016, 127–33). Consistent with Dr. Ding’s testimony, we applied a preliminary construction of “hopping sequence” in the Institution Decision as “the order in which the communications network hops among the set of frequencies.” Dec. 7. That construction is not contested by Patent Owner, and we adopt it for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “as disclosed by Gerten’s description of modified frequency hopping schemes. Id. at 14. In doing so, Petitioner notes that Gerten discloses periodic updating of the modified frequency hopping scheme, supporting a conclusion that Gerten discloses selection at different times. Id. at 14, 15– 16. Petitioner highlights this periodic updating to identify distinct “period[s] of time” during which different “set[s] of two or more communications channels [are] used to transmit and receive.” Id. at 15–16 (italics omitted). In addressing independent claim 1’s specific requirement that different sets of channels be used with the second and third communications devices, Petitioner reasons that the process summarized above may be applied by the master device to each of the slave devices separately: “the master device of Gerten performs a service discovery request to determine if each slave device has interference avoidance capabilities.” Id. at 18 (emphasis added) (citing Ding Decl. ¶ 53; Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 38–51). Thus, Petitioner argues, if one slave has such interference avoidance capabilities, communications with that slave may take place using a modified frequency hopping scheme; if another (legacy) slave lacks such interference avoidance capabilities, communications take place using a normal mode with default communications channels that are not changed based on channel performance. Id. at 18 (citing Ding Decl. ¶ 55); see id. at 16–17. Thus, Petitioner concludes, the recited transmissions and receptions from the third communications device over default communications channels occur “while” transmitting to and receiving from the second communications device over the first and second sets of communications channels, as we have construed the term “while.” Petitioner supports this reasoning with testimony by Dr. Ding, which we credit. Id. at 18 (citing Ding Decl. ¶¶ 53– 55).” slip op. at 15

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

    “Petitioner further provides persuasive reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the relevant teachings of Gerten and Cuffaro, including that “Cuffaro and Gerten are in the same field of endeavor” of selecting channels to avoid interference in a communications system; that measuring interference signal strength at a slave device such as described by Cuffaro provides a more accurate determination of the impact of the receiver unit from the interference on a given channel, and, therefore, would provide more accurate identification of bad channels in Gerten; and that Gerten suggests such a modification by describing that both a master and a slave can participate in identifying channels to avoid. Pet. 30–31. Petitioner supports this reasoning with declaration testimony by Dr. Ding. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 128, 129.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)). Patent Owner understates the degree to which Petitioner addresses the analogousness of the art by focusing on Petitioner’s contention that Gerten and Cuffaro are in the same field of endeavor. PO Resp. 40 (citing Pet. 30). Petitioner also addresses the second prong of the Clay test by providing reasons why a person of skill in the art would use the transmitted performance data of Cuffaro in the selection process of Gerten, including improved accuracy in determining the impact on the receiver unit from the interference on a given channel. See Pet. 31. We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning and find that Cuffaro and Gerten are analogous art to the claimed invention at least because they are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 14, and 26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gerten and Cuffaro.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,477,624 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,477,624

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.