• 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
• Telesign Corporation v. Twilio Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2019 · IPR2017-01977 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious over Maes and Ransom, alone or with Jiang; the ETSI-based grounds were not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science with at least two years of experience in application development.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 49–50). Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, software engineering, or the equivalent, and approximately 1–2 years of professional experience with or exposure to computer networking, telephony networking protocols, and various APIs,” but “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 32).” slip op. at 5

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

    “transfer (REST) API” to mean “an application programming interface that complies with Representational State Transfer (REST) interface constraints, which are: identification of resources; manipulation of resources through representations; self-descriptive messages; and, hypermedia as the engine of application state.” PO Resp. 10. Petitioner does not propose an express construction for the term “representational state transfer (REST) API,” but acknowledged at the oral hearing that Patent Owner’s proposed construction “simply makes express what [Petitioner] implies.” Tr. 32:24–33:13. Patent Owner’s proposed construction is supported by the specification of the ’376 patent and the extrinsic evidence. Specifically, the ’376 patent indicates that the term “REST” has its ordinary meaning in the art (Ex. 1001, 2:15–16, 8:12–14), and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Negus, explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “REST API” to refer to the interface constraints set forth in Patent Owner’s proposed construction (Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 163–166). Patent Owner’s proposed construction also is consistent with the construction that was adopted by the District Court in a related case. Ex. 2005, 16–22. Therefore, the term “representational state transfer (REST) API” is construed to mean “an application programming interface that complies with Representational State Transfer (REST) interface constraints, which are: identification of resources; manipulation of resources through representations; self-descriptive messages; and hypermedia as the engine of application state.”” slip op. at 7

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

    “had reason to combine the cited teachings of Maes and Ransom. Pet. 12, 14, 22–24, 27–29 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 51–58, 62–75, 80–82, 88). We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning. Specifically, Maes and Ransom relate to the same field of endeavor as the ’376 patent, namely, web services. Pet. 12, 14; Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:10, 15:51–61; Ex. 1003, 3:52–65; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 5, 42, 46, 57–58, 69–70, 78; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 51–58. It would have been obvious to combine the cited teachings of Maes and Ransom because Ransom’s REST API is a common web service model that provides similar functionality and has several design advantages over Maes’s SOAP API, such as increased interface flexibility and lower bandwidth requirements. Pet. 22–24, 27–29; Ex. 1004 ¶ 163; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 62–75, 80–82. It also would have been obvious to combine the cited teachings of Maes and Ransom because the teachings of Maes and Ransom are interrelated. Pet. 24, 28–29; Ex. 1009 ¶ 88; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“Often, it will be necessary . . . to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents.”). Namely, Maes teaches using a web service (Ex. 1003, 3:52–65, 15:66–16:4; Ex. 1009 ¶ 88), and Ransom explains that REST is one of two common web service models (Ex. 1004 ¶ 163; Ex. 1009 ¶ 88).” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusObjective indicia outweighedMixed

    “Therefore, because the evidence of record indicates that Petitioner had access to some of Patent Owner’s technology, but does not show specifically that Petitioner copied the invention claimed in the ’376 patent, the objective indicia of copying at best only weighs slightly in favor of non-obviousness.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 8,755,376 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,755,376
• Fredman Bros. Furniture Company, Inc. v. Bedgear, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00350 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11, 13, 15–22, 24, 25, and 27–34 are unpatentable; claim 23 was not shown unpatentable, because the Rasmussen anticipation challenge failed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not persuaded us that claim 23 is” slip op. at 62

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

    “Accordingly, Petitioner has not persuaded us that claim 23 is” slip op. at 62

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,887,332 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,887,332
• Department Of Justice v. Discovery Patents, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2017 · IPR2016-01041 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11, 12, 14, 16–18, and 20–31 are unpatentable over Monroe ’183; claims 15 and 19 were not shown unpatentable over Monroe ’183.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “A petition for inter partes review may be considered only if, inter alia, “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides guidance regarding factors to consider in determining whether a party is a real party in interest. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759–60 (Aug. 14, 2012). Considerations may include whether a non-party “funds and directs and controls” an IPR petition or proceeding. Id. at 48,760. Additional relevant factors include: the non-party’s relationship with the petitioner; the non-party’s relationship to the petition itself, including the nature and/or degree of involvement in the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition. Id. Whether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding is a real party in interest to that proceeding “is a highly fact-dependent question.” Id. at 48,759. There is no “bright line test.” Id. Courts invoke the term real party in interest to describe relationships and considerations sufficient to justify applying conventional principles of estoppel and preclusion. Id. A non-party’s participation with a petitioner may be overt or covert, and the evidence may be direct or circumstantial, but the evidence as a whole must show that the non-party possessed effective control over the petitioner relating to the inter partes review. Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., Case IPR2013-00609, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014) (Paper 15). We have considered Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and we determine that Petitioner was not required to identify the Third Parties as real parties in interest because there is insufficient evidence that any of these companies exercised, or could exercise, control over Petitioner with respect to this proceeding. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the motion practice before the Court of Federal Claims and notification of that action to the Third Parties does not reflect otherwise. Although we acknowledge that the existence of the above-identified indemnification clauses supports Patent Owner’s argument, we are unaware of any inter partes review decision in which a real party in interest finding was based solely on evidence of an indemnification clause, and we decline to do so here.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Constitutional / APA (Arthrex, Oil States, due process)Decided for petitioner

    “We decline to consider Patent Owner’s constitutional challenge as, generally, “administrative agencies do not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional enactments.” See Riggin v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 61 F.3d 1563, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1710 (TTAB 1999) (“[T]he Board has no authority . . . to declare provisions of the Trademark Act unconstitutional.”); Amanda Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1080 (TTAB 2014), rev’d on other grounds, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003); but see Am. Express Co. v. Lunenfeld, Case CBM2014- 00050, slip op. at 9–10 (PTAB May 22, 2015) (Paper 51) (“for the reasons articulated in Patlex [Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985)], we conclude that covered business method patent reviews, like reexamination proceedings, comply with the Seventh Amendment”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. The ’980 patent states that “the term ‘secured location’ may refer to residences, commercial properties, public venues, such as hospitals and sports arenas, government facilities, military installations and any other location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.” Ex. 1003, 3:20–24. This definition is non-limiting and does not exclude a changeable area or region. Based on the record developed during this proceeding, we maintain that the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ’980 patent of “secured location” is “any location, outside or inside, which is protected by a security alarm system.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Although the Specification of the ’980 patent gives examples of “response agency,” e.g., Ex. 1003, 1:41–43 (“an emergency response agency (e.g., the police department, the fire department or an emergency medical team)”), Patent Owner does not identify, and we do not find, a definition in the specification limiting “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments. Patent Owner also does not identify, and we do not find, anything in the entire disclosure of the ’980 patent requiring a “response agency” to be distinct from the “surveillance system infrastructure.” Accordingly, we decline to limit “response agency” to 911, police, or fire departments, or construe it to be distinct from surveillance system infrastructure.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,323,980 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,323,980
• Qualcomm Incorporated / Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2017 · IPR2015-01828 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21, 281, 283–286, 288, 289, and 293 are unpatentable as obvious over Nozawa and Philips 4052; claims 25, 26, 363–366, 368, 369, and 373 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Qualcomm contends, citing Dr. Larson’s testimony, that one of ordinary skill in the art as of October 1998 would possess, at a minimum, either (a) a master of science degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of experience in radio frequency circuit design, or (b) a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering with three or more years of experience with the design and development of RF circuits. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–39). ParkerVision does not contest Qualcomm’s designation of the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of the invention. Accordingly, we adopt Qualcomm’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “During the trial, ParkerVision asserted that we should maintain our construction of “harmonic” (PO Resp. 19–23), and Qualcomm did not address the adopted construction. With respect to the remaining terms, ParkerVision argues that none of these terms are material to the remaining dispute between the parties, which is focused on the “harmonic” limitation. Id. at 24–25. On this, we agree. As the remaining terms are not material to the parties’ dispute, we decline to construe them further. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Regarding the Maas equation, ParkerVision directs us to a portion of Dr. Larson’s deposition, in which Dr. Larson used the Maas equation to calculate the harmonics produced by a mixer, given certain assumed inputs supplied by ParkerVision’s counsel (an input signal of 100 kHz and an LO input of 1 MHz). Id. at 29–31 (citing Ex. 2001, 177–87). ParkerVision notes that Dr. Larson’s calculations produced -0.9, 3.1, and -4.9 MHz as the first three harmonics, which are not integer multiples. PO Resp. 31. Thus, ParkerVision argues, the circuit of Nozawa does not necessarily produce a plurality of harmonics, defined by the ’940 patent as being integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. Id. Qualcomm argues that the Maas equation “shows that Nozawa will necessarily produce the required ‘integer multiple’ harmonics for many input frequencies.” Pet. Reply 4 (emphasis added). According to Qualcomm, it is not required to show that Nozawa will produce integer multiple harmonics for all operating conditions; rather, it is only relevant that Nozawa could be operated to produce the harmonics. Id. Regarding Dr. Larson’s calculations during his deposition, Qualcomm contends that even using the assumed inputs provided by ParkerVision, the Maas equation shows that the 35th and 37th harmonics are 35.1 and -36.9 MHz, respectively, which are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency of 0.9 MHz. Id. at 7. Qualcomm also notes that selecting slightly different input frequencies for the Maas equation will produce much lower integer multiple harmonics, such as at the 7th and 9th harmonics. Id. at 8. The parties’ disagreements over the various inputs and permutations of the Maas equation aside, one point appears to be beyond dispute: under some conditions, but not all conditions, the Maas equation shows that Nozawa’s structure will produce a periodic signal that contains integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. In other words, the structure of Nozawa is capable of producing a signal that satisfies the limitations of the claim. Qualcomm argues that this is sufficient to show unpatentability. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Gen. Electric Co. v. Jewel Incandescent Lamp Co., 326 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1945)). On this point, we agree. Claim 21 and its dependents are apparatus claims; as such, they “cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In other words, the “periodic signal” limitations, which are directed to the transitory electrical signals produced by the apparatus, cannot give rise to patentability so long as the underlying apparatus has been shown to be capable of generating those signals. Here, it is undisputed that Nozawa’s circuit is capable of generating a periodic signal having a plurality of harmonics, wherein those harmonics are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. Furthermore, we agree with Qualcomm that Nozawa’s low-pass filter is capable of isolating one or more of those harmonics, as desired.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Qualcomm contends that “Nozawa and Philips 4052 both provide architectures and methods for upconversion that can be used for a transmitter.” Pet. 21. Indeed, as Qualcomm observes, the 74HC4052 chip described in Philips 4052 is used in Nozawa. Id. at 28–29. We agree with Qualcomm that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to look to the disclosure of Philips 4052 to learn more about the operation of the 74HC4052 chip disclosed in Nozawa. ParkerVision does not challenge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Nozawa with Philips 4052.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 6,091,940 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,091,940
• Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01679 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13–15, and 17 are anticipated by Sellers; claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 20–22 are obvious over Sellers and Stutman; claims 18–19 are obvious over …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “location.” See PO Resp. 21–22; Reply 2. On this record, we determine that the claim term “central monitoring device” is not further limited to a device that performs monitoring “during a monitoring session” such that it is able to “respond to patient status . . . when it detects evidence of certain physiologic conditions as they occur.” See PO Resp. 21–22. The Specification uses the term “central monitoring device” in an open-ended manner, and Patent Owner does not identify any lexicographic definition or disclaimer that would limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner it proposes. See PO Resp. 20–22; Tr. 38:1–17. Though Patent Owner cites one dictionary that defines “monitoring” as “constantly checking on a patient’s condition” (Ex. 2021, 930), this definition is overly narrow because the Specification makes clear that monitoring may be performed on a periodic basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:2–31, 8:57–64. Moreover, Patent Owner’s other dictionary definition (Ex. 2020, 752) does not reference a patient, or require detecting “physiologic conditions as they occur.” Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–16, 6:37–42, 7:13–20, 7:52–59, 8:23–38); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–32. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe “central monitoring device” as “a device that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location.” 2.” slip op. at 9

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

    “On this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we determine that the claim term “in communication with” encompasses indirect communications (e.g., communication by way of an intermediate component). We further determine that a processor need not generate a message, or respond to a message, in order to be “in communication with” a separate component. The ’901 Patent Specification uses the term “in communication with” in a broad, open-ended manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:13–23, 2:38–44. In addition, Patent Owner does not cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read the claim term “in communication with” to exclude embodiments in which a processor merely receives information. See PO Resp. 40–43. Nor does Patent Owner cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the claim term “in communication with” excludes communication between a processor and a component when the processor is acting as an intermediary between that component and some other component. See id. In addition, Dr. Fernald fails to sufficiently support his conclusion that the claim term “in communication with” excludes such forms of communication. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 99–103. 4.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art because this formulation more accurately describes the subject matter to which the ’901 Patent pertains. Patent Owner’s formulation is unduly narrow because subject matter of the ’901 Patent is not limited to “ECG telemetry devices” or other “remote monitoring and telemetry devices.” The parties do not dispute that Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are both qualified to testify about the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of which formulation we adopt. Tr. 24:22–25:3, 62:6–11. The parties also agree that the issues in this case do not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed formulations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24:13–19, 62:12–21. On this record, we find that both Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are qualified to offer expert opinions in this case. The factual findings and legal conclusions set forth below would not have differed had we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. 3.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–16, 6:37–42, 7:13–20, 7:52–59, 8:23–38); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–32.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 6,225,901 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,225,901
• Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01688 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 19–23 are anticipated by Sellers; claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 17, and 18 are obvious over Sellers and Stutman; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art because this formulation more accurately describes the subject matter to which the ’403 Patent pertains. Patent Owner’s formulation is unduly narrow because subject matter of the ’403 Patent is not limited to “ECG telemetry devices” or other “remote monitoring and telemetry devices.” The parties do not dispute that Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are both qualified to testify about the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of which formulation we adopt. Tr. 24:22–25:3, 62:6–11. The parties also agree that the issues in this case do not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed formulations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24:13–19, 62:12–21. On this record, we find that both Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are qualified to offer expert opinions in this case. The factual findings and legal conclusions set forth below would not have differed had we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that a central monitoring device/service is a device/service that “watch[es], keep[s] track of, or check[s]” on something “from a central location.” See PO Resp. 21; Reply 2. On this record, we determine that the claim term central monitoring device/service is not further limited to a device/service that performs monitoring “during a monitoring session” such that it is able to “respond to patient status . . . when it detects evidence of certain physiologic conditions as they occur.” See PO Resp. 20– 22. The Specification uses the term “central monitoring device” in an openended manner, and Patent Owner does not identify any lexicographic definition or disclaimer that would limit this claim term in the manner it proposes. See PO Resp. 19–22; Tr. 38:1–17. The term “central monitoring service” does not appear in the Specification. Though Patent Owner cites a dictionary that defines “monitoring” as “constant checking on a patient’s condition” (Ex. 2021, 930), this definition is overly narrow because the Specification makes clear monitoring may be performed on a periodic basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:6–35, 8:63–9:2. Moreover, Patent Owner’s other dictionary definition (Ex. 2020, 752) does not reference a patient, or require detecting “physiologic conditions as they occur.” Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the term central monitoring device/service in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:14–20, 6:42–47, 7:17–25, 7:57–64, 8:28–42); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 21–34. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe central monitoring device/service as a device or service “that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location.” 2.” slip op. at 9

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

    “On this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we determine that the claim term “in communication with” encompasses indirect communications (e.g., communication by way of an intermediate component). We further determine that a processor need not generate a message, or respond to a message, in order to be “in communication with” a separate component. The ’403 Patent Specification uses the term “in communication with” in a broad, open-ended manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:17–27, 2:42–48. In addition, Patent Owner does not cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read the claim term “in communication with” to exclude embodiments in which a processor merely receives information. See PO Resp. 40–44. Nor does Patent Owner cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the claim term “in communication with” excludes communication between a processor and a component when the processor is acting as an intermediary between that component and some other component. See id. In addition, Dr. Fernald fails to sufficiently support his conclusion that the claim term “in communication with” excludes such forms of communication. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 99–103. 4.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition and having considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties during the trial, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 19–23 are anticipated by Sellers. 4.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 6,940,403 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,940,403
• Honeywell International Inc. v. Allure Energy, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01248 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 20, 22–25, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamashita and Shamoon; claims 2–4, 6–8, and 19 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is attempting to improperly limit the construction. As we explained in our Decision on Institution, we declined to limit “comparison” to a particular type of evaluation, and by our construction, we did not find that the “focus” of the “comparison” is to identify “any dissimilarity” as Patent Owner contends. See Inst. Dec. 9. Indeed, as evidenced by the dictionary definitions cited by Patent Owner and that we relied upon, determining dissimilarities is not the “focus” of the plain and ordinary meaning of “comparison” that we adopted. See Inst. Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 2003 (defining “comparison” as “the act of looking at things to see how they are similar or different” and “the act of suggesting that two or more things are similar or in the same category”)); see also Ex. 2011 (defining “comparison” as “the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another” and “an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Here, we agree with Petitioner that the plain language of the claim is sufficient and no construction is necessary for this term. The claim language already establishes that there are two user profiles, each is associated with a particular and different mobile device, and the profiles include “information to alter an operating condition of the network device according to a preference of a [first/second] user.” The claim already addresses what attributes the user profile must have. We see no support in the claim language or specification for Patent Owner’s additional requirements that the profiles be “individual” and “include information unique to each user.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “v. Summary as to Claims 1, 20, 22–25, and 30 Patent Owner raises no evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness in this case. Thus, weighing the evidence of obviousness that is before us, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 20, 22–25, and 30 would have been obvious over the combination of Yamashita and Shamoon.” slip op. at 31

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

    “We do not find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. Teaching away requires that “a person of ordinary skill upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).4 Patent Owner cites nothing in Yamashita that says that adding the features from Shamoon in addition to the automatic functionality of Yamashita would be unlikely to work; Yamashita alleges only that manual control alone has certain disadvantages. 4 We understand Patent Owner to be arguing both that the references teach away from the combination generally and teach away because, in particular, the combination would change the principle of operation of the system. PO Resp. 33–36. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. McGaw, Inc., 149 F.3d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (finding no teaching away where nothing in the prior art device suggested that the claimed invention was unlikely to work). The lack of teaching away is confirmed by Yamashita’s disclosure of an embodiment requiring manual interaction. See Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1006, 22:31–51). Indeed, although Patent Owner contends that automatic functionality is “not the focus or main purpose of Shamoon,” PO Resp. 35, Shamoon’s system demonstrates that automatic functionality can be combined with manual functionality to result in a working system. See Ex. 1007, 8:36–45. As for Patent Owner’s contentions that Yamashita “abandoned bi- directional communication” (PO Resp. 35), we find no support in the cited portions of Yamashita for these contentions. Although Yamashita does tout the benefits of its automatic control system, the cited portions of Yamashita are silent about the advantages or disadvantages of “bi-directional communication.” As for Patent Owner’s arguments about substantial reconstruction and redesign (PO Resp. 36 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 91)), we do not find the testimony or argument persuasive. Yamashita’s control terminal and mobile terminals already has built in communication abilities (Ex. 1006, 11:31–38), and we find Dr. Selker’s testimony persuasive that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add the ability to communicate the thermostat reading to verify that Yamashita’s automatic control worked. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 205–207. As for Patent Owner’s allegation that the combination with Shamoon would change Yamashita’s principle of operation, we disagree. Yamashita would continue to work as before; the messages, rules, and control information would continue operate in the same manner. Shamoon would only add additional functionality to allow for an improved user interface and two-way communication. Where the device would operate on the same principles as before, the combination does not change the principle of operation. See Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332 (noting Ratti inapplicable where the modified apparatus will operate “on the same principles as before”). As Petitioner explains, Shamoon demonstrates that its known techniques have been used to improve similar devices in similar ways. We find that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 205–207, 213. Thus, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Yamashita and Shamoon.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,626,344 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,626,344

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.