• Intel Corporation v. Pact XPP Schweiz AGSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2021 · IPR2020-00539 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14–24, 28, 30, and 33 are unpatentable under the Nicol and Nicol–Bhatia obviousness grounds; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “2. Reason to combine Nicol and Bhatia Intel argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings of Nicol and Bhatia” for the following four reasons: (1) both references “are directed to interrelated thermal and power management aspects that are critical and ubiquitous in processor-based systems,” Pet. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1008, code (54); Ex. 1009, 1:6–8; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 231–233); (2) the references “both describe a flexible multiprocessor architecture in which software residing in a controller is programmed to selectively control the power supply of each processor, notably by dynamically adjusting the processor’s clock frequency during operation,” Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1008, 2:18–27, 3:13–18; Ex. 1009, 1:57– 59, 2:28–31, 3:23–28, 3:33–38, 12:26–37; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 231–233); (3) since Nicol “does not discuss over-temperature protection,” which is “critical for high-performance systems such as Nicol’s multiprocessor system,” a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to consult Bhatia, which discusses well-known techniques of providing over-temperature protection,” Pet. 54–55 (citing Ex. 1008, 3:9–20, 4:11–13; Ex. 1009, 2:18– 22, 3:33–46; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 231–233); and (4) a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to consult Bhatia [to implement] low activity states in Nicol’s system as . . . means to further minimize power consumption,” Pet. 55 (citing Ex. 1009, 12:58–64; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 231–233). In its Response, PACT argues that Intel’s four arguments “amount to little more than a suggestion that Nicol and Bhatia manage aspects of a computer system and it would be beneficial to combine these aspects,” which, “without any showing of actual motivation is plainly insufficient,” and “evidences application of impermissible hindsight bias.” PO Resp. 43– 44 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 110; Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). PACT also argues that Intel “makes no attempt to explain how a system combining Nicol and Bhatia would function, likely due to the fact that managing a plurality of metrics to create an efficient processing system is extremely difficult.” PO Resp. 44 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 111). Citing Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony, Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “might spend their entire career developing intricate systems for managing processor temperature and clock frequency among a plurality of processors, and [Intel] dismisses it as a mere triviality.” Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 2027 ¶ 111).” slip op. at 58

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

    “between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). For a combination of known elements that are not explicitly found together in the prior art, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). A successful petition must “articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418); see also 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4) (2020).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,552,047 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,552,047
• Clearone, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2020 · IPR2019-00683 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

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

  • Skill levelOther

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,565,493 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,565,493
• Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00627 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 10–16, 21–23, 25, and 38–46 are unpatentable; claims 6–9, 17–20, 24, and 47 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Although the dictionary defines “periodically” as “from time to time” or “at regular intervals of time,” based on the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner that its proposed construction is how one skilled in the art would have understood that term in the context of the ’345 patent Specification. Turning first to the intrinsic evidence, the Specification explains that “[t]he future and current minimum values are calculated continuously and initiated periodically, for example, every 5 seconds.” Ex. 1001, 8:37–39. Although the Specification later notes that “[i]t will be appreciated that, while specific values are used as in the several equations and calculations employed in the present invention, these values may be different than those shown” (id. at 8:64–67), this passage does not mean that the Specification contemplates arrangements where “periodically” is simply “from time to time.” Rather, we determine that statement from the Specification indicates that the specific amount of time (i.e., every 5 seconds) may vary. Turning now to the extrinsic evidence, the testimony of Dr. Douglas supports our conclusion, explaining that “at regular intervals of time” is the “only . . . definition . . . consistent with the understanding of a person skilled in the art in light of the specification of the ’345 Patent and its use in the particular field of audio signal processing” because [l]ike the “period” of an audio signal itself, which is the amount of time it takes for a signal to repeat itself, “periodically” as recited in claims 6 and 9 and throughout the remainder of the specification of the ’345 Patent refers to actions that occur at regular intervals (e.g., every 5 seconds rather than merely “from time to time”). Ex. 2002 ¶ 48. Moreover, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hochwald testifies that outside of the context of the ’345 patent Specification, “periodically” means “at regular time intervals” (Ex. 2005, 99:13–15), and when asked about that term’s meaning in the context of the ’345 patent Specification, Dr. Hochwald simply noted that “all I can do is read what it says,” which is that “[i]t’s doing something periodically, for example, every five seconds” (id. at 100:4–6). Accordingly, the testimony from Dr. Douglas, as well as that from Dr. Hochwald, supports Patent Owner’s construction. In summary, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “periodically,” requiring “at regular intervals of time,” because (1) this is consistent with how this term is used in the context of the ’345 Patent Specification; and (2) this is supported by the testimony of both experts.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner responds that, because Helf uses average values (i.e., the average of eight consecutive values), it does not disclose using a minimum value. PO Resp. 17–23. Patent Owner acknowledges that the ’345 patent, itself, uses a “smoothing process [that] produces frequency bins with multiple smoothed magnitude values, ultimately finding the minimum of all of the values,” but contends that “Helf’s averaging process produces a single output representing one average of the original samples.” Id. at 20–21 (underlining omitted) (citing Ex. 1001, 8:14–28; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72). We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of the differences between Helf and the ’345 patent. While Helf may ultimately produce a single minimum value, as discussed above, that value is based on a minimum value of the averages calculated over the given time period. At oral hearing, Patent Owner acknowledged that Helf determines many averages values (i.e., the averages of the eight consecutive frames) and determines a minimum of those values. See, e.g., Tr. 22:2–6. The claim simply requires a “future minimum value,” and does not preclude that value from being a minimum value taken from a set of average values. Indeed, such an interpretation of the claim would be inconsistent with the ’345 patent’s use of smoothed values noted by Patent Owner. Ex. 1001, 8:14–28. The testimony of Dr. Douglas cited by Patent Owner does not convince us otherwise. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 52, 63–72 (effectively repeating Patent Owner’s contentions, which are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Helf’s minimum value (Mk) corresponds to the “future minimum value” recited in claims 4 and 39.” slip op. at 13

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

    “With respect to its “running minimum estimator,” Helf explains that the “running minimum estimator” is used “when either the speech signal is never absent for more than a second or the background noise itself is never constant in spectral shape.” Ex. 1010, 8:11–15. Helf acknowledges that its “running minimum estimator” is “much less accura[te]” than its “stationary estimator,” which is typically used for background noise estimates. Id. at 8:15–17. As a result, Helf only uses its “running minimum estimator” if “[i]t has been more than 10 seconds since the last update of the background noise spectral estimate due to the Stationary Estimator,” and “[t]he difference, D, between the past background noise estimate, which may have resulted from the Stationary Estimator or the Running Minimum Estimator, and the current Running Minimum Estimator is great.” Id. at 8:32–42. We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We see no persuasive reason to set Helf’s current background noise estimate (Nk and Ck, considered the “current minimum” by Petitioner) to the minimum estimate (Mk) from the “running minimum estimator” (considered the “future minimum” by Petitioner). The testimony of Dr. Douglas supports this conclusion. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 119, 120. Addressing the portions of Helf noted above, Dr. Douglas testifies that “Helf only relies on Mk in a ‘worst case’ scenario” and “disfavors the use of Mk, even where Bk is unavailable,” and concludes that “one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to force the use of the disfavored Mk every ten seconds even where the much more accurate Bk estimate is available.” Id. ¶ 119. Dr. Douglas further testifies that “one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to abandon[] the comparison of D to a threshold” because “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Helf is a signal-dependent system, and it would not abandon its ability to adapt to varying signal conditions in favor of a blind periodic update using a disfavored estimate.” Id. ¶ 120. We credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald in this regard. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 157–159; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 115–120. The testimony from Dr. Douglas is consistent with the disclosure of Helf, while that of Dr. Hochwald is based on conclusory statements. For example, the only portions of Dr. Hochwald’s testimony cited in the Petition in connection with the rationale provided in this challenge are conclusory statements that “[a] person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Helf to update the background noise estimate after every 10 second period based on the teachings of Martin,” and “[t]he skilled person would have recognized it was beneficial to periodically update the minimum noise value to ensure it accurately reflected the current noise level,” which are contrary to the disclosure of Helf noted above. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 158, 159.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,363,345 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,363,345
• Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00626 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 12–25, 38, and 47 are unpatentable; claims 4–11 and 39–46 are not shown unpatentable, chiefly because the proposed Hirsch–Martin combination was not supported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In its Reply, Petitioner contends that, “[i]n this configuration [where W = 1], any purported distinction between windows and sub-windows in Martin vanishes and [Patent Owner]’s argument is irrelevant,” acknowledging that the proposed modification eliminates Martin’s sub-windows. Pet. Reply 5. Petitioner further contends that Patent Owner “incorrectly argues that the use of sub-windows is central to Martin’s algorithm” and “[n]othing in Martin suggests that the use of sub-windows is required.” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 6–8). We disagree with Petitioner, and credit the testimony of Dr. Douglas over that of Dr. Hochwald with respect to Martin’s use of sub-windows because, as discussed below, Dr. Hochwald’s testimony is not consistent with the disclosure of Martin, while the testimony of Dr. Douglas is consistent with that disclosure. See, e.g., Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 6–9 (asserting that Martin does not expressly require sub-windows); Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 94–96 (discussing Martin’s use of at least two sub-windows for monotonic determination). As noted above, Martin’s algorithm requires a determination of whether or not “the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing.” Ex. 1006, 1094. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to modify Hirsch’s system based on a scenario from Martin where W = 1 because such a scenario is counter to the entire purpose of Martin. Even Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Hochwald, acknowledges that a single data point (i.e., W = 1) cannot be used to determine whether something is monotonically increasing. See Ex. 2005 69:10–17 (explaining that you need at least two data points to make such a determination, meaning W ≥ 2). Petitioner fails to provide persuasive reasoning as to why one skilled in the art would have modified Hirsch’s teachings in a manner that is contrary to the express disclosure of Martin.” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner attempts to cure these deficiencies in its Reply, contending that, “[e]ven where Martin’s algorithm is configured to use multiple sub-windows, it still teaches the claimed ‘future minimum.’” Pet. Reply 8. We do not consider this new argument, as it is a new theory of unpatentability presented for the first time in the Petitioner’s Reply. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed Cir. 2016) (“A patent owner . . . is undoubtedly entitled to notice of and a fair opportunity to meet the grounds of [unpatentability].”) (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). For at least these reasons, Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4–11, 39–42, and 46 are unpatentable over the combined teachings of Hirsch and Martin.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Hirsch is directed to “techniques . . . to estimate the noise spectra or the noise characteristics for noisy speech signals” that “can be combined with a nonlinear spectral subtraction scheme.” Ex. 1005, 153. Hirsch discusses use of “FFT based spectral analysis” (id. at 154), for example, which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “generating the frequency spectrum of said audio signal thereby generating frequency bins of said audio signal” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27). Hirsch discusses use of an “adaptive threshold” for each frequency bin to distinguish between speech and noise (Ex. 1005, 153), which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “setting a threshold for each frequency bin using a noise estimation process” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27). Hirsch describes comparing spectral components to their corresponding thresholds to determine if speech is present (Ex. 1005, 153), which Petitioner cites as corresponding to the “detecting for each frequency bin whether the magnitude of the frequency bin is less than the corresponding threshold, thereby detecting the position of noise elements for each frequency bin” recited in claim 1 (Pet. 27–28). Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Hirsch discloses each and every element of claim 1. We also are persuaded that Hirsch discloses each and every element of claim 38 for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, as well as the “subtracting said noise elements . . . from said audio signal” additionally recited in claim 38. With respect to the recited “subtracting,” Petitioner cites Hirsch’s discussion of spectral subtraction. Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1005, 153–155). As Petitioner notes, “[t]he spectral subtraction technique shown in Hirsch subtracts the noise estimate from each sub-band or ‘bin’ and sets any negative values to zero” (id. (citing Ex. 1005, 153)), which “is the same technique used in the ’345 patent” (id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:58–61, 7:16–27)). Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 21, and 23 depend from claim 1, and Petitioner cites to relevant portions of Hirsch as disclosing the additional limitations of those claims. See Pet. 28–31. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s unrebutted arguments and evidence related to how Hirsch properly accounts for each and every element of these dependent claims, which we adopt for purposes of this decision. Specifically, we find that Hirsch discloses the additional limitations recited in those claims based on the citations to Hirsch therein and the supporting expert testimony. See id. Based on our review of the record before us, the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions that claims 1–3, 12, 13, 21, 23, and 38 are anticipated by Hirsch.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Initially, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art would have considered Martin’s teachings, generally, when reviewing the teachings of Hirsch, as Martin is specifically referenced in Hirsch itself. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that one skilled in the art would have modified Hisch’s system based on the teachings of Martin in the particular manner proposed by Petitioner. Consistent with Patent Owner’s contentions noted above, Martin describes determining “[t]he noise power estimate is based on the minimum of signal power within a window of L samples” and “[f]or reasons of computational complexity and delay the data window of length L is decomposed into W windows of length M such that M * W = L,” and provides an example where W=4. Ex. 1006, 1094. Martin distinguishes between “slowly varying noise power” and “rapidly varying noise power” to determine its noise power estimate, with a determination of whether the minimum power in successive sub-windows is monotonically increasing central to its estimation. Id. “If the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing we decide on rapid noise power variation” and “the noise power estimate equals the power minimum of the last M samples Pn(i) = PMmin(i = r * M).” Id. “In case of non monotonic power the noise power estimate is set to the minimum of the length L window.” Id. Regardless of whether the noise power calculation is that for “slowly varying noise power” or “rapidly varying noise power,” Martin requires that first a determination is made as to whether or not “the minimum power of the last W windows with M samples each is monotonically increasing.” Id. (emphasis added). To the extent there can be any dispute on this issue, the testimony from Dr. Douglas supports the understanding that at least two subwindows are required to determine which noise power calculation to use. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 95, 96. In its Reply, Petitioner contends that, “[i]n this configuration [where” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 6,363,345 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,363,345
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Image Processing Technologies LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 9, 2018 · IPR2017-00336 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 22 is unpatentable as obvious over Pirim; claims 1, 18, 19, and 29 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We begin our claim construction analysis with the plain language of the claim. In particular, the plain and ordinary meaning of “an input multiplexer adapted to receive data describing one or more parameters of the event being detected and to output data describing a selected one of the one or more parameters in response to a selection signal” encompasses two alternative structures. Ex. 1001, 29:64−67 (emphases added). The first alternative structure includes a “single parameter” multiplexer. The second alternative structure includes a “multiple parameters” multiplexer. The Specification confirms our understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language because the Specification discloses both alternative structures. Id. at 2:51−61; 9:1−6, 11:14−48, 17:55−18:23, 20:58−66, Figs. 3, 4, 12, 13d, 14, 15a, 15b, 17, 25, 31a.” slip op. at 19

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are 6 No objective evidence of non-obviousness has been presented in this proceeding. 27 made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey–Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In that regard, we do not observe meaningful differences between the parties’ assessments of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 28–29; PO Resp. 13. For instance, both the parties agree that such an artisan would have had a degree in electrical engineering or a related field and experience in the field of image processing. Id. We further note that either assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Our analysis in this Decision is supported by either assessment.” slip op. at 27

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

    “differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of non-obviousness.6 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 27

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

    “Having reviewed the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has established sufficiently that Pirim discloses an input multiplexer and a selection signal, as recited in claim 22. Patent Owner’s arguments and supporting evidence do not undermine Petitioner’s showing.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 6,959,293 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,959,293
• 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
• Alarm.Com Inc. v. Vivint, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 10, 2017 · IPR2016-00161 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9, 10, 14, and 27 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 17, 18, 22, 25, 26, and 28 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combination did not teach the claimed normal status message.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or computer engineering (or equivalent experience) and at least two years of experience in supervisory and control systems.” Pet. 8. Alarm.com’s declarant, Mr. Zatarain, assumes this skill level assessment in his declaration and opines that he was a person of ordinary skill, under this assessment, at the time of the invention. Ex. 1107 ¶ 11. Vivint does not dispute Alarm.com’s assessment in its Response, but we note that Vivint’s declarant, Mr. Denning, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’654 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science and at least four years of experience in remote monitoring and control systems,” with the possibility of less experience being compensated for by more education. Ex. 2010 ¶ 15. We do not discern a material difference between the assessments advanced by the declarants, nor does either party premise its arguments exclusively on its assessment of the level of skill in the art. Moreover, each party’s declarant appears to meet or exceed both parties’ assessments (see Ex. 1107 ¶¶ 2–4, Attachment A; Ex. 2011), and either assessment of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’654 patent and the asserted prior art. We adopt Mr. Zatarain’s assessment and apply it to our obviousness evaluation below, but note that our conclusions would be the same under Mr. Denning’s assessment.” slip op. at 18

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

    “skill in the art would have had sufficient reason to combine the teachings of Levac with Shetty and Garton, we note that the Supreme Court has held that an obviousness evaluation “cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether Alarm.com has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. When describing examples of what may constitute a sufficient rationale to combine, the Supreme Court elaborated that, “if 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.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. After considering the record in its entirety, we are persuaded that Alarm.com’s rationale for combining the teachings of Shetty, Levac, and Garton suffices as articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. When, as here, a technique has been used to improve one device (i.e., Levac’s messaging system creates an .msa file that may incorporate a particular message and a list of destination parameters, such as a recipient site location, required for transmitting a message to a particular destination), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would improve similar devices in the same way (i.e., using the aforementioned disclosure in Levac to improve Shetty’s system), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond the skill level of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; Pet. 31–33; Ex. 1107 ¶¶ 125–128; see also In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Our reviewing court has recognized “[t]he normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.”). Apart from generally asserting that neither Alarm.com nor Mr. Zatarain provides the “what,” “how,” and “why” for the asserted combination of Shetty and Levac (see PO Resp. 51–52), Vivint does not present credible evidence that combining the teachings of these references in the manner proposed by Alarm.com would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the skill level of an ordinarily skilled artisan.” slip op. at 49

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

    “Mintz to support its argument that Alarm.com must look to the problem solved by the ’654 patent in its obviousness evaluation, we do not agree. In KSR, the Supreme Court made clear that it is error to “hold[] that courts and [petitioners] should look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. The Supreme Court explained that [t]he question is not whether the combination was obvious to the patentee but whether the combination was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed. Id. Here, as we explain above, Alarm.com provides sufficient reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Shetty allows a user to remotely access user profile database 106 via user interface 110 to configure profiles stored therein. See Pet. 21–23; Pet. Reply 14–16. Alarm.com’s reasoning in this regard is directed specifically to the subject matter at issue in independent claims 9 and 27, and Alarm.com provides sufficient evidence in the record to support its reasoning. As a result, instead of presenting reasoning that is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction, as asserted by Vivint, Alarm.com has articulated sufficient reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to extend Shetty’s teaching of user access to user profile database 106 via user interface 110 to provide for remote configuration of the profiles stored therein.” slip op. at 42

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

    “Alarm.com’s explanations and supporting evidence as to how the combination of Shetty and Garton teaches or suggests the remaining limitations recited in independent claims 9 and 27, nor does Vivint address the reasons provided by Alarm.com as to how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Shetty and Garton. See generally PO Resp. 14–42. We have reviewed Alarm.com’s explanations and supporting evidence in this regard, and we are persuaded that the combination of Shetty and Garton teaches or suggests each such limitation (see Pet. 17–23, 29–31, 33–37, 40–41, and evidence cited therein), as well as that Alarm.com’s rationale for combining the teachings of Shetty and Garton suffices as articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness (id. at 31–33; Ex. 1007 ¶ 128). (4) Conclusion We conclude that Alarm.com has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of independent claims 9 and 27 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Shetty.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 6,462,654 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,462,654
• Alarm.Com Inc. v. Vivint, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 2, 2017 · IPR2016-00173 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 10, 13, and 15–17 were held unpatentable under § 103; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Alarm.com’s declarant, Mr. Zatarain, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of January 1999 would be an individual who possesses (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, computer engineering, or equivalent coursework; and (2) at least two years of experience in remote monitoring and control systems. Ex. 1106 ¶ 11; Pet. 7 (stating the same). Vivint’s declarant, Mr. Denning, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of January 1999 would be an individual who possesses (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science; and (2) at least four years of experience in remote monitoring and control systems. Ex. 2010 ¶ 15. We do not discern a material difference between the assessments advanced by the declarants, nor does either party premise its arguments exclusively on its assessment of the level of skill in the art. Moreover, each party’s declarant appears to meet or exceed both parties’ assessments (see Ex. 1106 ¶¶ 2–4, Attachment A; Ex. 2011), and either assessment of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’123 patent and the asserted prior art. We, therefore, adopt Mr. Zatarain’s assessment and apply it to our obviousness evaluation below, but note that our conclusions would be the same under Mr. Denning’s assessment.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “In our claim construction section above, we construe the claim term “communication device identification codes” as including either a device ID or serial number of a device. See supra Section II.A.2. Shetty’s telephone numbers and email addresses are not consistent with this construction because they do not identify uniquely a specific device. See Ex. 1103, 2:18– 21, 3:18–20. We also credit Vivint’s declarant, Mr. Denning’s, testimony on this particular issue. See Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 127–130. In particular, Mr. Denning testifies that “[Shetty’s] system can dial a particular phone number, and it will reach whatever device is tied to that phone number at the moment. It is not device-specific.” Id. ¶ 129 (emphasis added). He also testifies that, “[s]imilarly, [Shetty’s] system could send an email, and the recipient would be able to retrieve that email from nearly any Internet-accessible computer device. Again, this is not device-specific.” Id. ¶ 130 (emphasis added). We, therefore, agree with both Vivint and Mr. Denning that Shetty does not teach or suggest the claimed “communication device identification codes.” See PO Resp. 36–37; Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 127–130.” slip op. at 48

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

    “patent, we discern no reason to modify the construction of the claim phrase “message profile containing outgoing message routing instructions” set forth in the Decision on Institution. As we explained in that Decision, we interpret the statement in the ’123 patent that “a list of who to contact via what means depending on which fault has occurred may be referred to as a ‘message profile’” (Ex. 1101, 2:34–36 (emphasis added)), at most, reflects that “a list of who to contact via what means depending on which fault has occurred” could be an example of a message profile, and does not necessarily require “a list of who to contact.” Dec. on Inst. 10. Although we acknowledge Vivint’s interpretation of the phrase “may be referred to as a ‘message profile’” as indicating that “message profile” simply is one of “many” names that could be given to “a list of who to contact via what means depending on which fault has occurred” (see PO Resp. 3, 31), we do not agree with Vivint that its proposed construction of “message profile” represents the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification of the ’123 patent. As we pointed out in the Decision on Institution, the ’123 patent includes embodiments, in which, for example, multiple messages are sent to multiple recipients via differing media for the same exception condition (Ex. 1101, 4:8–11), or the same person is contacted by different means (e.g., fax or personal communication service) at different times (id. at 6:17–18). Dec. on Inst. 10–11. Vivint’s proposed construction, requiring the message profile to specify “which communication device associated with which individuals” (PO Resp. 31), would exclude such embodiments. In view of the full record developed during trial, we remain unpersuaded by Vivint’s argument that the statement in the specification of the ’123 patent that “a list of who to contact via what means depending on which fault has occurred may be referred to as a ‘message profile’” (Ex. 1101, 2:34–36) provides the requisite “clarity, deliberateness, and precision” to indicate that the patentees intended to act as their own lexicographer and disclaim the embodiments identified above. See Dec. on Inst. 10–11; In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”); Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” and, if done, must “‘set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure’ so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change” in meaning). Accordingly, we again conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “message profile containing outgoing message routing instructions” is a “data record including instructions specifying at least one communication device to which an outgoing message can be routed in response to an incoming exception message.” This construction is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of this claim phrase, as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art, in light of the claims and specification of the ’123 patent. See Ex. 1101, 2:34–36, 4:8–11, 6:17–18.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Shetty and Levac, we note that the Supreme Court has held that an obviousness evaluation “cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether Alarm.com has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. When describing examples of what may constitute a sufficient rationale to combine, the Supreme Court elaborated that, “if 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.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. When considering the record in its entirety, Alarm.com’s rationale for combining the teachings of Shetty and Levac suffices as articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. When, as here, a technique has been used to improve one device (i.e., Levac’s messaging system creates an .msa file that may incorporate a particular message and a list of destination parameters, such as a recipient site location, required for transmitting a message to a particular destination), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would improve similar devices in the same way (i.e., using the aforementioned disclosure in Levac to improve Shetty’s system), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond the skill level of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; Pet. 27–28; Ex. 1106 ¶¶ 96–98; see also In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (The Federal Circuit previously has recognized “[t]he normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.”). Apart from generally asserting that neither Alarm.com nor Mr. Zatarain provide the “what,” “how,” and “why” for the asserted combination of Shetty and Levac (see PO Resp. 38–40), Vivint does not present credible evidence that combining the teachings of these references in the manner proposed by Alarm.com would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the skill level of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Based on the record developed during trial, we conclude that Alarm.com has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of dependent claims 5 and 16 would have been obvious over Shetty and Levac.” slip op. at 53

  Patent outcomesUS 6,535,123 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,535,123
• Mobotix Corp. v. Comcam International, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 28, 2016 · IPR2015-00093 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 and 9–28 are unpatentable as obvious over Thomas and Fernandez; claims 7 and 8 were not shown unpatentable on that ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claim Interpretation In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed.Cir.2015), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016). 1. website (independent claims 1 and 25) Petitioner asserts that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “website” is “a computer system that has a recognized domain name and runs a Web server for publishing a group of related webpages on the Web.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1005). Based on our analysis below, we determine that the claim term “website” does not require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6

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

    “[The] claim language clearly states that the triggering sensor is in an area covered by “a particular imaging device” (emphasis added), not necessarily within an area covered by “the imaging device” activated. Consistent with this, the claim language “capturing event data associated with the event detected at a particular at least one sensor” (emphasis added) does not require that the triggering sensor is in an area covered by the activated imaging device, as an imaging device would not need to cover the area occupied by a sensor to capture event data associated with an event detected by the sensor.” slip op. at 8

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

    “and a sensor sending a signal indicating an event has been detected, we are persuaded that Fernandez teaches this in its statement that detectors may sense state and that, “[i]n certain instances, e.g. unauthorized home entry, such sensed state may trigger other functionality, such as taking electronic photograph and/or notifying certain entities.” Ex. 1007, col. 4, ll. 47–50; Pet. 40–41; Pet. Reply 11–13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 128–130. We also are persuaded that it would have been obvious to operate Thomas’s system in accordance with this teaching, i.e., to activate the living room camera in response to the living room motion sensor sending a signal indicating that an event has been detected. Pet. 40–41; Pet. Reply 11–13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122–131.” slip op. at 31

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

    “We are not persuaded that Mr. Monroe correctly identifies the principle of operation of Thomas. In particular, we find that the principle of operation of Thomas is not as narrow as Mr. Monroe asserts. Thomas discloses that: Broadly speaking, the invention relates to improved techniques to remotely monitor locations and to remotely monitor and control devices or appliances through a network. In one embodiment, the network in the Internet and the transmission is facilitated by an Internet server or electronic mail. The remote monitoring of locations is provided by efficiently transmitting images over the network to a remote machine located at a remote location. In one embodiment, the efficiency is facilitated by comparing a current image with a reference image, and then only transmitting the current image if it differs from the reference image by more than a predetermined threshold amount. The remote monitoring can also operate as an alarm system or provide intruder detection based on detected changes in images from a locally provided camera.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 6,975,220 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,975,220
• Harmonic, Inc. v. Avid Technology, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2014 · IPR2013-00252 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Haskell and Rossmere; claims 11–16 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish the predefined timing limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Upon further review of the ’291 Patent Specification, the inclusion of “into the selected input lines” is not consistent with the ’291 Patent Specification. Instead of disclosing control of the video data flow into the selected input lines, the ’291 Patent Specification discloses that input switch 105, via microcontroller 110, controls video data flow of the selected input 8 lines into decompression circuits 120, 130. For example, the ’291 Patent Specification provides the following disclosures: (1) “[m]icrocontroller 110 instructs input switch 105 to begin flowing the second compressed video data stream into decompression circuit 130 [] at the second, lower rate” (Ex. 1001, col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 1 (emphasis added)); (2) “[m]icrocontroller 110 will . . . instruct input switch 105 to stop the flow of video data into decompression circuit 130” (id. at col. 5, ll. 9–11 (emphasis added)); (3) “[i]nput switch 105 also begins to flow the second video data stream into decompression circuit 130 at the higher, first rate of video flow” (id. at col. 5, ll. 19–21 (emphasis added)); (4) “[m]icrocontroller 110 has instructed input switch 105 to begin flowing the second video data stream into decompression circuit 130 at the second, lower rate” (id. at col. 5, ll. 36–39 (emphasis added)); (5) “[m]icrocontroller 110 instructs input switch 105 to begin flowing the next video data stream into first decompression circuit 120 at the second, lower rate” (id. at col. 5, ll. 43–46 (emphasis added)); and (6) “[m]icrocontroller 110 [] instructs input switch 105 to begin flowing the next video data stream into decompression circuit 130 at the second, lower rate” (id. at col. 5, ll. 52–56 (emphasis added)). Accordingly, applying the broadest reasonable construction standard, we now construe “input switch . . . capable of controlling the video data flow rate” as “controlling the time, duration, and rate at which video data flows, and includes some level of control beyond simply turning flow on or off.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner’s arguments are predicated incorrectly on demultiplexer switch 203 alone as teaching or suggesting the claimed input switch, and disregard the claim construction of “switch” as including “a device or assembly for routing or selecting a data stream.” Pet. Reply 3–5. As set forth in the Petition (Pet. 44), Haskell’s demultiplexer switch 203 of decoder 200 (illustrated in Fig. 3) is coupled to compressed data streams via multiplexer switch 108 of encoder 100 (illustrated in Fig. 2). Thus, Petitioner’s position is that demultiplexer switch 203 of decoder 200 together with multiplexer switch 108 of encoder 100 teaches or suggests the claimed input switch. Petitioner also asserts that Haskell’s encoder 100 controls the flow of data through decoder 200. Pet. 44. As pointed out by Petitioner, Patent Owner fails to address the relevant components and functionality provided in the encoding system 100, which includes multiplexer switch 108 communicatively coupled with demultiplexer switch 203 of decoder 200. Pet. Reply 4–5. Patent Owner’s arguments narrowly focus on demultiplexer switch 203, and do not address sufficiently multiplexer switch 108 of encoder 100 together with demultiplexer switch 203 of decoder 200 as capable of controlling the video flow rate of the selected input lines (i.e., controlling the time, duration, and rate at which video data flows, and including some level of control beyond simply turning flow on or off).” slip op. at 18

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

    “by Petitioner, Patent Owner does not identify any explicit teaching away from the combination in Haskell. Pet. Reply 9–10. “Under the proper legal standard, a reference will teach away when it suggests that the developments 22 flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the [patented] invention.” Syntex (U.S.A.) v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently how Haskell suggests that any developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce a decompression system including an output switch. Rather, as noted by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s arguments focus on a portion of Haskell’s disclosure that is exemplary and not limiting. Pet. Reply 10–11 (citing Ex. 1008, col. 11, ll. 25–41). Petitioner correctly points out that Haskell is not limited to operating on related input types (i.e., video and audio streams generated during the same time period), but that Haskell discloses that “[a]ny signals capable of being divided into units and encoded may be employed within the scope of the invention.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1008, col. 20, ll. 30–32). Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the addition of an output switch are predicated incorrectly on preserving the function and intended purposed of Haskell’s system operating on the exemplary video and audio signals that were generated during the same time period. Instead, Haskell must be considered for everything it teaches. EWP Corp., 755 F.2d at 907. As set forth in the Petition, “[i]t would [have] be[en] obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system disclosed in Haskell with an input and output switch, which were well-known in the art[,] including in Rossmere, in order to select separate decoded video signals.” Pet. 47. Petitioner further asserts that” slip op. at 22

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

    “We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s repeated argument that there is no reason, absent hindsight reliance on the teachings of the ’291 Patent, for a person of ordinary skill to contemplate adding an output switch to generate a single continuous output stream from the outputs of Haskell’s system. PO Resp. 30; see Prelim. Resp. 36. Patent Owner’s arguments presented in the Response are identical substantially to the arguments presented in the Preliminary Response, and Patent Owner does not offer any additional evidence in its Response to support its arguments. Compare PO Resp. 30, with Prelim. Resp. 36. As explained in our Decision on Institution, Patent Owner does not provide sufficient evidence to support this assertion, or sufficient evidence or argument addressing the technological difficulties that may prevent one with ordinary skill in the art from combining the teachings of Haskell and Rossmere to arrive at the invention embodied in claim 1. See Dec. on Institution 29. For these reasons, we are persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that Haskell in view of Rossmere would have rendered obvious the invention of claim 1.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 5,495,291 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 5,495,291

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.