• Cooler Masters Co., Ltd. v. Aavid Thermalloy LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 4, 2020 · IPR2019-00337 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9, 10, and 13 were held unpatentable as obvious; claims 11 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The existence of a published abstract that would have allowed one skilled in the art exercising reasonable diligence to locate the foreign patent application and the fact that the application was classified and indexed in the patent office, were central to the Wyer court’s conclusion that the application was “publicly accessible.”” slip op. at 35

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

    “inherency, then the assertions of obviousness are mere conclusory statements. We are unable to recognize any proffered reasoning underlying the assertions of obviousness. “[Challenges] on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be 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). As yet another possible alternative, Petitioner may be basing its case on improper hindsight by relying on and quoting the Specification of the ’240 patent in its obviousness analysis. See Pet. 27. That, too, is unpersuasive. Regardless as to its theory of the case, we determine that Petitioner has failed to explain sufficiently why the claimed heat pipe having a configuration of two plates having bonded together circumferential edge lips would have been obvious. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 12 is unpatentable over Morikawa alone.” slip op. at 55

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “as not relevant under FRE 104 on the grounds that Petitioner failed “to introduce sufficient proof that Exhibit 1004 was publicly accessible such that it qualifies as a prior art printed publication under United States law.” Paper 46, 3; see also id. at 4 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 104, 401). As set forth in section II.D, above, the evidence of record leads us to an entirely different conclusion regarding Nakamura’s prior art status. Because Petitioner persuades us that Nakamura qualifies as a prior art printed publication as of the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims of the ’240 patent, we deny Patent Owner’s request on its merits.” slip op. at 82

  Patent outcomesUS 7,066,240 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,066,240
• Cooler Masters Co., Ltd. v. Aavid Thermalloy LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 4, 2020 · IPR2019-00144 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–12 were not shown unpatentable; claim 13 was shown unpatentable as obvious over Nakamura and Takahashi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “The existence of a published abstract that would have allowed one skilled in the art exercising reasonable diligence to locate the foreign patent application and the fact that the application was classified and indexed in the patent office, were central to the Wyer court’s conclusion that the application was “publicly accessible.”” slip op. at 36

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

    “made using related processes, however, says nothing about why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine them in a manner that renders the claimed subject matter obvious. See Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“We must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.”)). Petitioner’s argument that the references are “similar and analogous” is not adequate reasoning, by itself, to support a conclusion of obviousness.” slip op. at 54

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “as not relevant under FRE 104 on the grounds that Petitioner failed “to introduce sufficient proof that Exhibit 1004 was publicly accessible such that it qualifies as a prior art printed publication under United States law.” Paper 46, 3; see also id. at 4 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 104, 401). As set forth in section II.D, above, the evidence of record leads us to an entirely different conclusion regarding Nakamura’s prior art status. Because Petitioner persuades us that Nakamura qualifies as a prior art printed publication as of the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims of the ’240 patent, we deny Patent Owner’s request on its merits.” slip op. at 73

  Patent outcomesUS 7,066,240 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,066,240
• Fanduel, Inc. / Draftkings, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 8, 2018 · IPR2017-01333 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Carter and Barton; claim 6 is unpatentable as obvious over Carter, Barton, and Walker. Claims 1–3 and 6 were not shown unpatentable over Carter and Martin.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “It “remains true in construing patent claims before the PTO” that “the prosecution history . . . serves as intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction.” Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “The PTO should also consult the patent’s prosecution history in proceedings in which the patent has been brought back to the agency for a second review,” such as the present inter partes review. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015), overruled on other grounds by Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Upon our review of the entire record, we agree with the construction of “selectable betting parameter” previously provided by the Board, during ex parte prosecution of the ’952 patent, as set forth above. Therefore, for the reasons provided in that previous Board decision, none of which are disputed here, we apply that construction here. 2.” slip op. at 9

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

    “However, the Federal Circuit has “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.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We find no such clear disclaimer in the ’952 patent specification that would require Patent Owner’s narrow interpretation of the “corresponding” claim term. In particular, while any given location in the cited example from the ’952 patent corresponds to one value of the parameter so the location “determines the bet input” (Ex. 1001, 2:20–22), there is no clear disclosure that other locations may not correspond to that same parameter. It is only in one “example” that each different location “corresponds to a different roulette number.” Id. at 2:22–24 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’952 patent disclosure does not clearly disclaim multiple different locations each corresponding to the same bet input (number or color). See id. at 2:12–31.” slip op. at 12

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

    “After full consideration of the foregoing arguments, we conclude Patent Owner’s analysis of the scope of the claim limitation at issue is vague and confusing. That claim limitation is: the first and second selectable betting parameters are different such that selecting one would cause a different result for the bet than selecting the other. Ex. 1001, 35:23–28. Such language, on its own, presents a straight-forward claim requirement. Patent Owner’s overlying varnish suggesting that the claim requires a relationship between the first and second parameters, making them “comparable variables,” is not supported by the claim language at issue, and confuses Patent Owner’s analysis of the prior art at issue. We reject Patent Owner’s implicit claim construction of this claim limitation and determine no explicit claim construction of this limitation is needed to resolve the issues presented by the arguments and evidence of record. 4. Remaining Claim Terms The parties do not offer any further explicit claim constructions. We determine no further explicit claim constructions are needed to resolve the issues presented by the arguments and evidence of record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s reference to video game experience, as opposed to some other computer gaming experience, is not required to achieve ordinary skill in the art pertinent to the ’952 patent. The ’952 patent is concerned principally with implementing different gaming rules via computer hardware and software as a mobile gaming device moves between jurisdictions; the specific technical implementation of presenting the game on a computer screen is only a secondary consideration. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract. However, even if we were to accept Petitioner’s position on this point, it would not affect the bases for our decision set forth below. We agree with Petitioner that ordinary skill here requires gaming experience, and does not encompass telecommunications experience without gaming experience. While wireless communication and location tracking are components of the ’952 patent’s claimed invention, the specifics of how such communication and tracking occur is only a secondary consideration. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:51–2:11, 7:48–8:12. However, even if we were to accept Patent Owner’s position on this point, it would not affect the bases for our decision set forth below. We determine a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’952 patent would have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or a similar field. Such a person, further, would have at least about two years of experience designing and developing computer hardware and software to be used for playing games.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,306,952 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,306,952
• Digital Check Corp. D/B/A St Imaging v. E-Imagedata Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2018 · IPR2017-00178 · APJ Melissa A Haapala · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, 20–25, 27, 28, 31, 41, 43, 44, 53, and 63 are unpatentable over Fujinawa and Kokubo; claim 26 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Our decision does not turn on the minor differences between the definitions, particularly as Petitioner asserts that, under either definition, its 1 The record does not include arguments or evidence regarding objective indicia of non-obviousness. analysis remains the same. See Reply 2. Both Petitioner and Patent Owner advocate a similar level of experience. Accordingly, we accept the level of skill advocated by Patent Owner, with the addition of Petitioner’s identification of working with microform scanners and readers as permissible experience and electrical engineering as a permissible undergraduate degree.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Although we have considered the construction of the terms anew in light of the full trial record, we determine that we need not explicitly construe any term to resolve the issues before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Kokubo. Petitioner persuades us that replacing the worm drive mechanism disclosed by Fujinawa with the guide rail and belt/pulley configuration disclosed by Kokubo would have been a simple substitution of one known drive mechanism for another that yields predictable results. See Pet. 23–25; Reply 12. We credit the testimony of Mr. Senn that the proposed combination “would have been a simple substitution of the motor shaft mechanism of Fujinawa for the rod and belt configuration of Kokubo to obtain a predictable result, i.e., translation of rotational movement from the motor to linear movement of the carriage to enable the carriage to move along a lead member.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 102. Mr. Senn further testifies that “[t]here are a finite quite short list, means of converting rotary motion to linear motion.” Ex. 2007, 56:15–16. We determine Petitioner articulates sufficient reasoning for the proposed combination to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 398, 417–18. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the components would not be performing the same function. As noted by Petitioner, the claimed functionality is to cause the first carriage “to move along the first lead member” and not “precision focusing.” See Reply 3–4. We determine that the functionality of both Fujinawa’s threaded worm and Kokubo’s rail/belt system is the same—namely a drive mechanism to move the carriage. We are not persuaded that replacing the drive mechanism taught by Fujinawa with the drive mechanism taught by Kokubo would have been more than a simple substitution (as testified by Mr. Senn (Ex. 1002 ¶ 102)) or would otherwise have been challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19

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

    “proposed combination. The sections of Kokubo cited in support of Patent Owner’s assertion describe that if the drive pulleys and wire ropes should slip in the conventional reading device shown in Figures 48 and 49, an error occurs in the displacement amount of the wire ropes, which would give rise to distortion in the image. Ex. 1005, 2:48–56. The cited sections of Kokubo further describe that in the device of its fourth embodiment, the lens tube 40 moves along the guide shafts 50, 51 and that the optical parts can be thus moved with high precision and distortion of the image read by the line sensor is consequentially prevented. Ex. 1005, 13:55–61. As noted by Petitioner (Reply 9), the prior art system discussed by Kokubo is an unguided wire rope system. See Ex. 1005, Fig. 49, 2:1–6. We disagree with Patent Owner that Kokubo’s description of issues with a prior art unguided wire rope system would have discouraged one of skill in the art from making the combination proposed by Petitioner to replace Fujinawa’s worm with Kokubo’s timing belt and rail system. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 would have been obvious over Fujinawa and Kokubo.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,179,019 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,179,019
• 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
• Daifuku Co., Ltd. / Daifuku America Corp. v. Murata Machinery, Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 3, 2016 · IPR2015-00083 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11–15, 17, and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by JPAP ’213; claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over JPAP ’213 and JPAP ’237.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In our Institution Decision, we construed the “translating stage is configured to vertically move the gripper portion” limitation as follows: Claim 1 merely requires a translating stage configured to vertically move the gripper to a position near (“proximate”) one of two locations, a load port and a storage location. The translating stage need not be configured to move the gripper to a location proximate both because the claim uses the phrase “at least one of” those two locations. Dec. on Inst. 12. After further development of the record and consideration of the arguments presented and evidence relied upon by both parties, we determine that the above construction is appropriate with respect to this Final Written Decision. Accordingly, we construe “at least one of [a] and [b]” to mean “at least one of the listed items but not necessarily both.”” slip op. at 15

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

    “construction for the “at least one of” phrase, “there is no anticipation because JPAP ’213 cannot move the gripper proximate to the claimed positions.” PO Resp. 22. This argument is not persuasive because, for the reasons set forth above, the properly construed claims are not as narrow as Patent Owner proposes. See Section II.A. Even were we to conclude that Patent Owner’s proposed construction, where “at least one of” modifies both “[a]” and “[b],” Patent Owner’s arguments are not on point. Claim 1, for example, recites “the translating stage is configured to vertically move the gripper portion . . . to at least one of a second position proximate to a load port [beneath the rail] and a third position proximate to a storage location [disposed lateral to the rail].” There is no dispute that the system of JPAP ’213 is capable of moving to a location proximate a location under the rail. As to the storage location, it is not readily apparent how the above-quoted claim language requires, as Patent Owner argues, a vehicle “capable of moving the gripper/hoist mechanism laterally.” PO Resp. 23; see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 102 (Dr. Bottom’s offering the conclusory opinion that “[A] vehicle capable of moving the gripper to a position proximate to the storage location/conveyer lateral to the overhead rail must be capable of moving the gripper/hoist mechanism laterally.”). A vertically-moving system would be configured to move a gripper proximate (near, next to) an adjacent storage location even if lacking the ability to move laterally so as to place a unit on a storage shelf. Cf. Dec. on Inst. 12 (indicating our understanding of “proximate” as meaning “near”); see, e.g., Ex. 1003, col. 8, ll. 12–16 (“[The overhead hoist transport vehicle is moved along a track, as depicted in step 904, to a position adjacent the selected storage bin.”), and Figs. 3, 5b. Accordingly, we find the system of JPAP ’213 has the capability of moving to a position proximate a laterally disposed storage location as well as a positon beneath the rail. Ex. 1005, 20 (Fig. 1). Based on the argument and evidence presented in the Petition, and the insufficiency of the responsive argument and evidence presented in the Patent Owner Response, as discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11–15, 17 and 20 are anticipated by JPAP ’213.” slip op. at 19

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

    “paragraph 7 as providing the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the lateral transfer device from the conveyance truck of JPAP ’237 to moving body 3 in JPAP ’213 Figure 1. Dr. Sturges, moreover, does not provide a reasoned analysis based on the disclosures and embodiments of JPAP ’213 and JPAP ’237, in the context of the knowledge and skill level of a degreed engineer with 3–5 years of experience developing automated material handling systems. Dr. Sturges does not explain why and how one of ordinary skill would have selected the lateral transfer device from the conveyance truck of JPAP ’237 for use with moving body 3 in JPAP ’213 Figure 1. Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 162–165. For example, there is no explanation of why one of ordinary skill would use the lateral transfer device from JPAP ’237, given that mechanically moveable storage tables already are used to effect lateral transfer of articles B on both sides of moving body 3 in JPAP ’213 Figure 1. See id. Even if the proposed modification were to be made, Dr. Sturges does not account for counterweight 51 in JPAP ’237, which extends laterally to the opposite side of extendable arm 42, or explain why the counterweight would not interfere with the articles and storage tables located on the opposite side of moving body 3 in JPAP ’213 Figure 1. Id.; see also Mot. Observ. 4–5 (quoting Ex. 2041, 70:22–71:15 (“Q. [Y]ou did not provide any testimony that the hoist vehicle of the JPAP ’213 reference can utilize the robotic arm on one side while maintaining the swinging shelves on the other side; correct? A. That’s correct.”)). To the extent Petitioner argues that Dr. Sturges has provided evidence on this point (Tr. 83:9–13), such evidence has not been cited in the Petition or the Reply, nor have we located such evidence. Pet. 48–58 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 57, 157– 196); Reply 12–13 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 162–65, and 169); Mot. Observ., 2–3 (quoting Ex. 2041, 71:23–72:9 (“Q. [Y]ou did not address whether it would have been necessary to change the functional relationship between the swinging shelf and the hoist vehicle of the JPAP ’213 reference; correct? A. That’s accurate.”)).10” slip op. at 32

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “D. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibit 1038 and ¶¶ 3–4 of Exhibit 1040 filed by Petitioner with Petitioner’s Reply. Mot. Excl. 1 (Paper 47). Petitioner opposes the motion to exclude. Pet. Excl. Opp. 4–14 (Paper 56). Exhibit 1038 is a confidential product development plan dated September 25, 2002, and produced by Petitioner in this proceeding. Exhibit 1040 is a Second Declaration of Dr. Sturges, and paragraphs 3–4 contain his testimony explaining aspects of the confidential product development plan of Exhibit 1038. Petitioner relies on Exhibit 1038 and paragraphs 3–4 of Exhibit 1040 to rebut Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner copied Patent Owner’s invention claimed in the ’172 patent. Reply 20, 22, and 25. Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibit 1038 and paragraphs 3–4 of Exhibit 1040 as irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402), inadmissible hearsay (Fed. R. 11 In view of our determination, we need not consider Patent Owner’s objective evidence of nonobviousness. See Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“objective evidence of nonobviousness . . . may be sufficient to disprove or rebut a prima facie case of obviousness”). PO Resp. 46–60; see also Reply 18–25. Evid. 801(c)), and unauthenticated (Fed. R. Evid. 901). Mot. Excl. 1–8. We do not rely on or address Patent Owner’s asserted objective evidence of nonobviousness or Petitioner’s rebuttal evidence in our Decision. Therefore, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibits 1038 and paragraphs 3–4 of Exhibit 1040 is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 8,197,172 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,197,172
• Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2015 · IPR2014-00787 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–22 and 24–30 are unpatentable as anticipated by Gough; claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, 12–14, and 21 are not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. Although Figures 4 and 5 of the ’960 patent show keys that are partially surrounded by shadowing or shading, there is no suggestion in the Specification that the “blended shadow” recited in the claims should be limited to only this shadowing. The claim language itself, referring to a blended shadow of the representation of at least one key and the main image (see claim 24), indicates explicitly that the blended shadow incorporates both the key image and the main image and, thus, should not be limited to the shadowing surrounding the keys. Accordingly, based on the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “blended shadow” as “a portion of a composite image in which the main image is visible through the overlaid image as a result of combining the data from corresponding pixels from the main and overlaid images” for the purpose of this Final Written Decision. B.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner does not explain adequately where the detailed analysis set forth in the Reply is made in the Petition, and, in any event, we do not find the arguments persuasive. “A patent claim is anticipated if a single prior art reference expressly or inherently discloses every limitation of the claim.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, Petitioner does not describe sufficiently how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to accomplish the blending process.6 We do not agree that either Gough’s description of the blending process depicted in Figures 10a–10f (Ex. 1007, 10:23–41) or Gough’s description of using the color look-up table (id. at 14:9–19) expressly discloses using logical operators, and such express disclosure is required for anticipation. At best, Petitioner’s arguments suggest how Gough could be envisioned as using logical operators, but do not explain adequately where or how Gough expressly discloses using logical operators to carry out the blending process. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 depending therefrom, are anticipated by Gough.” slip op. at 15

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

    “3. Harrison Petitioner also argues Harrison teaches certain limitations. Pet. 44, 48, 52–55. Petitioner does not explain what Harrison adds to what is taught by Buxton. See id. at 48 (“[t]o the extent that these features may not be fully disclosed in Buxton, they are clearly disclosed in Harrison”). For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine the teachings of Harrison are cumulative to the teachings of Buxton, and therefore, do not address Harrison further.7 4. Claims 1–3, 5, 7–10, and 12–14 Petitioner argues that “Buxton discloses nearly all of the elements and limitations” of the challenged claims. Pet. 42. With respect to claim 1, Petitioner argues that Buxton discloses using alpha blending in accordance with the equation I = αI1 + (1-α)I2, where I is the resulting color intensity, I1 is the color intensity of the foreground image pixel, I2 is the color intensity of the background image pixel, and α is the specified transparency level between 0 and 1. Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1009, 17:17–28). Petitioner argues that Buxton’s alpha blending “permits pixels to be ‘dedicated simultaneously’ to both images in order to produce a composite image” and is an “example of an operation using logical operators to provide different blending effects.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1009, 16:63–17:4). Petitioner contends that although “Buxton may lack explicit disclosure of . . . a touchactivated device (required in claims 1 and 26),” Bier discloses that a touch screen is interchangeable with a mouse. Id. at 44–45. Petitioner also contends that Bier discloses a keyboard superimposed over a display. Id. at 7 Because the asserted ground includes Harrison, we continue to include it as part of our overall analysis.” slip op. at 23

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

    “After considering all evidence and arguments, we agree with Patent Owner. In particular, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do not persuade us that Buxton’s alpha blending equation uses operators that manipulate binary values at the bit level, consistent with our construction of “logical operators.” The alpha blending equation unquestionably involves arithmetic operations, which we find differ from logical operations. Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown persuasively whether any logical operations overlap with any arithmetic operations. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner’s contention that Buxton’s alpha blending equation does not use logical operators.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 6,121,960 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 6,121,960
• Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00504 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 18 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 2 are anticipated by Boehm, and the challenged claims are obvious over the instituted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “To remove Boehm as a prior art reference, the record must establish either: (1) a conception and reduction to practice before the filing date of Boehm; or (2) a conception before the filing date of the Boehm patent combined with diligence and reduction to practice after that date. See Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 726 F.3d 1306, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Under either approach, however, it must be proven that conception occurred prior to November 4, 2002. See id. “Conception exists when a definite and permanent idea of an operative invention, including every feature of the subject matter sought to be patented, is known.” Sewall v. Walters, 21 F.3d 411, 415 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, “[t]he conception analysis necessarily turns on the inventor’s ability to describe his invention with particularity. Until he can do so, he cannot prove possession of the complete mental picture of the invention.” Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Objective evidence that corroborates an inventor’s testimony regarding the conception of the invention is required “because of the danger in post-hoc rationales by an inventor claiming priority.” Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The sufficiency of corroboration is determined according to a “rule of reason.” Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This approach, however, “does not dispense with the requirement for some evidence of independent corroboration.” Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985).” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed construction does not take into account properly the “managing the data path” claim language, even given that Petitioner construes only the limitation “a Local Area Network (LAN) routing system” rather than the entire phrase. In any event, we decline to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction because it erroneously equates a LAN routing system to “a local area network or equivalent circuitry.” We do not view a LAN routing system as being equivalent to a LAN itself or circuitry “equivalent” to a LAN, which Petitioner has not described. We also decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which is not supported adequately. Specifically, Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently why managing the data path necessarily is accomplished “by controlling client devices’ access to the Internet and by controlling access to the client devices from the Internet.” Patent Owner asserts that the Specification of the ’771 patent describes managing the data path “by controlling the client devices’ access to the Internet, such as by requiring authentication before permitting access” and preventing “unauthorized access in the opposite direction by ‘allow[ing] all client devices 30 to share a single external Internet address.’” PO Resp. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:1–14); see also Tr. 43:10–14 (stating the Specification “talks about managing as controlling the client devices’ access to the Internet, things like authentication, and controlling access to client devices from the Internet, like sharing a single Internet address”). The Specification, however, does not describe “managing the data path” explicitly, and we are not persuaded that the “managing the data path” claim language necessarily includes the authentication and sharing functions described in the cited passages. As such, Patent Owner’s reliance on the cited passages in its construction seeks to improperly read limitations from the Specification into the claim. See 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.”). Dr. Tewfik testifies that “[i]n computer networking, routing systems allow data to be exchanged between networks by forwarding data to a recipient device in one network from a sending device in another network.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 10. Dr. Tewfik further testifies that, “[i]n the ’771 patent, the LAN routing system is the LAN [R]outer 16,” and the LAN routing system allows data to be exchanged between the short-range local network and the Internet. Id. ¶ 11. This testimony is not dissimilar to Dr. Roy’s testimony that a LAN routing system “routes (i.e. communicates) data between a client device that is accessible via a short-range wireless interface and the Internet that is accessible [via] a long range Internet access interface.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 18. Thus, Dr. Tewfik and Dr. Roy essentially are in agreement that a routing system directs (i.e., exchanges, routes, or communicates) data between networks. This meaning is consistent with the Specification of the ’771 patent, which describes LAN Router 16 as “direct[ing] traffic from the access point 12 to the Internet 20 via the fixed WAN interface 18.” Ex. 1001, 3:33–34. Therefore, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the Specification, we interpret the phrase “a Local Area Network (LAN) routing system managing the data path between said wireless access point and said Internet access interface” to mean “a system that directs data between a local area network and the Internet by managing the data path between a wireless access point and an Internet access interface.”” slip op. at 8

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

    “3. “stand-alone system” In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted “stand-alone system” to mean “a system capable of operating independently of any other system.” Dec. on Inst. 8–9. The parties do not dispute this interpretation (PO Resp. 10; Pet. Reply 13), and we see no reason to modify this interpretation in light of the record developed at trial. Accordingly, we adopt this interpretation for this Final Written Decision. B.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Regarding claim 1, Petitioner argues that Boehm discloses (1) the recited short-range, high-speed wireless access point in the form of wireless access point 325; (2) the recited long-range, wireless Internet access interface in the form of interchangeable network interface 350; and (3) the recited LAN routing system in the form of router 330. Pet. 13. Petitioner also argues that Boehm discloses the recited stand-alone system without the need to access an external service controller server, because Boehm discloses “performing DHCP and network address translation locally rather than by requiring an external server accessible via a long-range network connection to do so.” Id. at 13, 16. With respect to claim 2, Petitioner argues that Boehm discloses using 802.11b wireless communication technology. Id. at 16 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 21).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,382,771 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,382,771
• Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2015 · IPR2014-00501 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 7, 9–12, and 16–18 were held unpatentable; claims 4–6, 8, 13–15, and 19–21 were patentable because the cited art did not disclose the required transmission behavior.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “With respect to entitlement to any earlier effective priority date, a party must identify, specifically, the disclosure in ancestral applications “which do not share the same disclosure,” and which allegedly show § 112 support for the relied-upon priority date. See, e.g., Polaris Wireless, Inc. v. TruePosition, Inc., Case IPR2013-00323, slip. op. at 29 (PTAB Nov. 15, 2013) (Paper 9). To link the Ayyagari Provisional with Ayyagari ’508, Petitioner relates the claims of the ’392 patent to Ayyagari ’508, and then, separately, relates the claims of the ’392 patent to the Ayyagari Provisional. This triangulation does not meet Petitioner’s burden of showing that Ayyagari ’508 is entitled to the earlier filing date of the Ayyagari Provisional. Specifically, while the cited portions of the Ayyagari Provisional and Ayyagari ’508 may each disclose a certain claim limitation, the disclosures may be in different embodiments or contexts such that the cited portion of the Ayyagari Provisional does not provide an adequate ancestral basis for the cited portion of Ayyagari ’508. Petitioner should not expect the Board to search the record and cull the evidence necessary to support Petitioner’s arguments. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Personalized Media Comm., LLC, Case IPR2014-01533, slip op. at 6 (PTAB April 20, 2015) (Paper 16); cf., DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist with the record.”). Petitioner has not, in its case-in-chief, linked the Ayyagari Provisional disclosure with the Ayyagari ’508 disclosure in a sufficient manner to meet its burden. Petitioner has not shown that Ayyagari ’508 is entitled to a priority date any earlier than its actual filing date of February 22, 2001.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “explain the alleged reduction to practice embodied in Exhibit F. In evaluating a Patent Owner’s reliance on a declaration, we take into consideration whether Petitioner has had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Amneal Pharms., LLC v. Endo Pharms. Inc., Case IPR2014- 00360, slip op. at 4 (PTAB December 3, 2014) (Paper 39). If Patent Owner does not produce a declarant for cross-examination, we will give that declaration little to no weight. See Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. de C.V. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., Case IPR2013-00576, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2014) (Paper 36). Petitioner, upon requesting deposition availability for Mr. Wentink, was informed by Patent Owner that “[w]ith respect to Mr. Wentink, Patent Owner does not believe it is required, under the rules, to produce Mr. Wentink for deposition.” Ex. 1017 (corrected), 1. No further explanation of Patent Owner’s interpretation of the rules, or regarding availability of Mr. Wentink for deposition, is before us. Although we have no reason to question Dr. Tewfik’s credentials, his value as a witness is compromised heavily by his distance from and post hoc evaluation of the circumstances of the alleged reduction to practice of the invention. Patent Owner is correct that it was not required, under the rules, to make Mr. Wentink available for cross-examination. Under these circumstances, however, we accord Mr. Wentink’s declaration little weight.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Although the ultimate determination of whether a document is a printed publication is a question of law, it is a question that is closely based on the underlying facts and circumstances surrounding the disclosure of a document to members of the public. Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014); SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Public accessibility is a key question in determining whether a document is a printed publication and is determined on a case-bycase basis. Suffolk Techs., 752 F.3d at 1364. To qualify as a printed publication, a document “must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.” In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been 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.” SRI Int’l, 511 F.3d at 1194 (quoting Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 16

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “The moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion to exclude is neither a substantive sur-reply, nor a proper vehicle for arguing whether a reply or supporting evidence is of appropriate scope. Zynga Inc. v. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC, IPR2013-00162, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Aug. 28, 2013) (Paper 15); Berk-Tek LLC v. Belden Tech., Inc., IPR2013-00057, slip op. at 3 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2013) (Paper 39). Patent Owner’s objections to Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017 go more to the weight that the information disclosed therein should be afforded, rather than to its admissibility. It is within our discretion to assign the appropriate weight to be accorded to the information in Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017. The Board, sitting as a non-jury tribunal with administrative expertise, is well-positioned to determine and assign appropriate weight to evidence presented. Gnosis S.P.A. v. S. Ala. Med. Sci. Found., IPR2013-00118, slip op. at 43 (PTAB June 20, 2014) (Paper 64); see also Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941) (“One who is capable of ruling accurately upon the admissibility of evidence is equally capable of sifting it accurately after it has been received.”). We, thus, decline to exclude Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that Exhibits 1010, 1013, and 1014 are evidence that properly responds to arguments made by Patent Owner in its Response. Resp. to Mot. to Excl. 11, 12–14; 37 C.F.R. § 42.23. Regarding Exhibit 1006, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that the testimony of Mr. Worstell (Ex. 1010) authenticates Exhibit 1006. Resp. to Mot. to Excl. 7–8. Similarly, we are persuaded that Exhibit 1010, paragraphs 13–15, reflect testimony based on Mr. Worstell’s personal knowledge and should not be excluded. Accordingly, the Motion to Exclude is dismissed as to paragraphs 23 and 59 of Exhibit 1008, paragraph 6 of Exhibit 1019, and Exhibit 1016, and denied as to Exhibits 1005, 1006, 1010, 1013, 1014, and 1017.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 7,136,392 mixed
  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,136,392
• Square, Inc. v. Rem Holdings 3, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 7, 2015 · IPR2014-00312 · APJ Denise M Pothier · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10–17 are unpatentable under §103 over Lekernel and Padilla, alone or with Wallner; claims 3–5, 8, and 9 are not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We agree that the McLaughlin declaration does not outline specific qualifications of one skilled in the art. Ex. 1015 ¶ 9. However, Dr. McLaughlin states, and we agree, that “the level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art references.” Id. and Pet. Reply 3 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). We also agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has unduly narrowed the qualifications of one of ordinary skill. See Pet. Reply 1. In particular, and in contrast with the above assertions, Patent Owner describes Mr. Bourdeauducq as an expert in the relevant field. PO Resp. 1 (stating “Sebastien Bourdeauducq (See Exhibit 2033), (and an actual expert in the Relevant Field)”). Yet, Mr. Bourdeauducq lacks several of the purported qualifications of an ordinarily skilled artisan that Patent Owner asserts. Pet. Reply 2. For example, Mr. Bourdeauducq was about eighteen years old when he wrote the Lekernel article, had no engineering degree, had about one week of experience with magnetic stripe card readers, and had a general consumer understanding of credit card processing. Id. (citing Ex. 1064, 12:14–15:20). Based on the record, we determine that the level of skill in the art is more aligned with a high school or first-year engineering student taking a class covering the topic of basic circuit analysis and having a general, consumer knowledge of magnetic card readers.4 Mr. Bourdeauducq, Dr. McLaughlin, Dr. Morley, and Mr. Wood all have these qualifications. Ex. 2033 ¶ 3 (referring to Exhibit A) and Ex. 1064, 15:16–20; Ex. 1015 ¶ 2 and Ex. 2035, 88:15–18; Ex. 2031 ¶¶ 6, 9; Ex. 2032 ¶¶ 7–8. As such, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, we disagree that the McLaughlin declaration should be given no weight. PO Resp. 11. Also, regardless of whether Dr. McLaughlin has immediate knowledge of certain details about magnetic card readers (e.g., card reader manufacturers, frequency characteristics of a read head signal when a card is swiped), we disagree that he is not qualified as an ordinarily skilled artisan. See PO Resp. 16, 19 (quoting portions from Ex. 2035); see Pet. Reply 1–2.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “We agree that the McLaughlin declaration does not outline specific qualifications of one skilled in the art. Ex. 1015 ¶ 9. However, Dr. McLaughlin states, and we agree, that “the level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the prior art references.” Id. and Pet. Reply 3 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). We also agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has unduly narrowed the qualifications of one of ordinary skill. See Pet. Reply 1. In particular, and in contrast with the above assertions, Patent Owner describes Mr. Bourdeauducq as an expert in the relevant field. PO Resp. 1 (stating “Sebastien Bourdeauducq (See Exhibit 2033), (and an actual expert in the Relevant Field)”). Yet, Mr. Bourdeauducq lacks several of the purported qualifications of an ordinarily skilled artisan that Patent Owner asserts. Pet. Reply 2. For example, Mr. Bourdeauducq was about eighteen years old when he wrote the Lekernel article, had no engineering degree, had about one week of experience with magnetic stripe card readers, and had a general consumer understanding of credit card processing. Id. (citing Ex. 1064, 12:14–15:20). Based on the record, we determine that the level of skill in the art is more aligned with a high school or first-year engineering student taking a class covering the topic of basic circuit analysis and having a general, consumer knowledge of magnetic card readers.4 Mr. Bourdeauducq, Dr. McLaughlin, Dr. Morley, and Mr. Wood all have these qualifications. Ex. 2033 ¶ 3 (referring to Exhibit A) and Ex. 1064, 15:16–20; Ex. 1015 ¶ 2 and Ex. 2035, 88:15–18; Ex. 2031 ¶¶ 6, 9; Ex. 2032 ¶¶ 7–8. As such, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, we disagree that the McLaughlin declaration should be given no weight. PO Resp. 11. Also, regardless of whether Dr. McLaughlin has immediate knowledge of certain details about magnetic card readers (e.g., card reader manufacturers, frequency characteristics of a read head signal when a card is swiped), we disagree that he is not qualified as an ordinarily skilled artisan. See PO Resp. 16, 19 (quoting portions from Ex. 2035); see Pet. Reply 1–2.” slip op. at 12

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

    “§§ “Requisites,” “Hardware,” and “Improvements” and Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 39–42). Patent Owner does not dispute these findings related to Padilla or reasons to combine the references. See generally PO Resp. The record also reflects that conditioning signals within a circuit to achieve a desired result was known and, given the combined Lekernel/Padilla system, one skilled in the art would have conditioned signals sent from the card reader to the microphone input based on the cell phone’s characteristics. See Dec. on Inst. 12, 14–15 (citing Pet. 17–18 (discussing proving an analog signal in an acceptable processing range) and citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 29). In the Decision to Institute, we discussed cell phone characteristics, such as Padilla’s, and how these characteristics relate to whether signal attenuation is needed for the phone’s input. See Dec. on Inst. 14 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 29). For example, Padilla suggests using phones other than “the Siemens MC60” to turn a mobile phone into a magnetic stripe reader. Ex. 1010 § “Foreword.” Accordingly, based on the cell phone selected and its characteristics, we determine that one skilled in the art would have recognized that conditioning signals inputted and received by a cell phone’s microphone input may be necessary. Dec. on Inst. 12 (citing Pet. 17), 14. Specifically, we concluded that “an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that the characteristics of the cell phone’s microphone input impact whether attenuation between the read head and the cell phone’s microphone input is needed.” Dec. on Inst. 14; see also Pet. 21–22, 24–25. The record includes two particular examples where one skilled in the art would have added resistance to Lekernel’s circuit and attenuated the signal received by the phone of the combined Lekernel/Padilla system. See Dec. on Inst. 14 (citing to Ex. 1015 ¶ 29). First, Dr. McLaughlin describes a known technique of providing the microphone input an acceptable level for the cell phone using a voltage divider by placing a resistor at the output of coil 24 or the read head. Ex. 1015 ¶ 16. To be clear, in this scenario, the resistor would be added outside Figure 2’s amplifier in Lekernel to achieve a voltage drop and to “to ensure the signal falls within a range of signals detectable and usable by a cell phone,” preventing damage to a recipient device. See Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 9, 14. Dr. McLaughlin further discusses impedance matching the card reader circuit with the cell phone’s microphone input when the cell phone has internal amplification. Dec. on Inst. 14 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 29); Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 28–29. Given the background knowledge of an ordinary artisan, one skilled in the art would have understood to add resistance to the combined Lekernel/Padilla system (e.g., after the amplifier in Lekernel’s Figure 2) for attenuating the signal sent to the microphone input in order to achieve an acceptable level for the cell phone and/or to impedance match the read head device with the cell phone.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “In the context of this proceeding, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s contention that when the marketed product embodies and is coextensive with the claimed features, a secondary consideration factor (e.g., commercial success) is a presumptively attributed to the claimed invention. PO Resp. 49–50. For example, In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996) states “that [commercial] success is relevant in the obviousness context only if there is proof that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention-as opposed to other economic and commercial factors unrelated to the quality of the patented subject matter.” Id. at 140 (emphasis added); see also In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (indicating there is no nexus where the evidence results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim). Thus, in establishing a nexus with a secondary consideration in this proceeding, Patent Owner needs to show a specific feature of the claim is attributable to the commercial success of Square’s card reader and not just that the device is coextensive with the claimed features. Patent Owner points to an interview of Mr. Jack Dorsey, described as Square’s CEO. PO Resp. 51–52. In the interview and in response to asking what Square was, Mr. Dorsey states “OK, well [ah] Square is [ahh] a very simple little device that plugs into your iPhone or Android device and allows anyone to accept credit card immediately wherever they are.” PO Resp. 52 (citing Ex. 2047). Patent Owner asserts that this discussion establishes a nexus to the claimed “output plug” feature. Id. Yet, this statement just describes the plug and does not relate the plug itself to any of Square’s commercial success. The statement is also vague as how the device plugs into a phone, such that there is an insufficient tie to the recited “output plug, adapted to be inserted into a jack associated with a microphone input associated with a cell phone” in claim 1. Ex. 1001, 6:66– 67 (emphasis added). Although stating the reader is “very simple” and “little,” Patent Owner has not demonstrated these features are claimed and are a novel or unique feature of the claims — a requisite needed to outweigh the case for obviousness based on commercial success.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,584,946 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,584,946

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.