- Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00523 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–2 as obvious over Wise and Shaffer, and claims 3–15 as obvious over Wise, Shaffer, and Burrows.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Lipoff, contends that a POSITA “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing,” wherein “[m]ore education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40, 61–74). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. See generally PO Resp. 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’402 patent was filed before March 16, 2013, the effective date of the relevant amendment, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies. claimed invention because, based on the record, this proposal is consistent with the ’402 patent, the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lipoff.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any claim construction. See Pet. 5; See generally PO Resp. We do not perceive a need to construe any claim terms of the ’402 patent to resolve the disputed issues before us. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and 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) (holding that “only those terms need to be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”))); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for petitioner
“While a negative limitation need not be recited in the specification in haec verba, there generally must be something in the specification that conveys to a skilled artisan that the inventor intended the exclusion.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Here, Patent Owner does not provide sufficient evidentiary support that conveys an intended exclusion of user interaction during sequential access. Instead, both parties and both experts merely point out that the specification of the ’402 patent is silent with respect to user participation during sequential access. PO Resp. 73 (Patent Owner asserting that “the ’402 patent is silent as to the participation of a user in the sequential search process”); Ex. 2063 ¶ 289 (Mr. Winters testifying that “there is no disclosure in the specification of the ’402 patent related to user interaction in the sequential search process”); Pet. Reply 5 (Petitioner asserting that Patent Owner is “[i]mporting a requirement that user interaction is precluded by the claims—a negative limitation, when the specification is wholly silent on it”); Ex. 2061, 107:15–22 (Mr. Lipoff agreeing that “there’s no specific mention of the user interacting” in the portion of the specification related to “the sequential search”). As the Federal Circuit explained in Novartis, silence is not sufficient support for a negative limitation. See Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. interaction from the plain and ordinary meaning of the sequential access limitation. Instead, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on Shaffer for disclosing the sequential access limitation as recited. See Ex. 1011, 6:3–29. In particular, Shaffer discloses determining whether a system is at the end of a list of sites to visit, and sequentially visiting the sites until the user is satisfied. Ex. 1011, 6:3–29. Furthermore, Wise’s system accesses web pages relating to a subject phrase to retrieve user-requested information. Ex. 1007, 6:31–49. We credit the supporting testimony of Mr. Lipoff, which is consistent with the teachings of Wise and Shaffer, in which he testified that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Wise’s system that accesses websites to retrieve user-requested information based on Shaffer, resulting in a system that accesses websites sequentially/subsequently until information is found. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 200. We disagree with Patent Owner that the ’402 patent’s specification “teaches against the notion of user interaction in the claimed ‘sequentially accessing’ operation,” which “is time consuming and inefficient.” PO Resp. 73–75. A given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, which “does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Petitioner has articulated sufficient reason, supported by rational underpinning, to effect the combination of teachings it proposes. We credit Petitioner’s contention, which is supported by Mr. Lipoff’s testimony, that a POSITA would have been motivated “to apply Shaffer’s sequential search technique when retrieving information from websites in Wise’s ranked index” in order to “maximize the likelihood of finding the desired information and efficiently use computing resources by searching in slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 8,185,402 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,185,402 - Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00413 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable under § 103 over Dua and GlobalPlatform, with Smart Card Handbook and Thibadeau added for claims 7–12.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Here, the parties’ definitions differ in one significant way. Petitioner requires one year of more specific experience, i.e., mobile payment experience, while Patent Owner requires more experience, but that experience can be more general related to computer and network security. We agree with Petitioner that mobile payment technology is an important aspect of the claimed invention and should be included in the definition. However, we also find that Petitioner’s definition is flexible enough to address the concerns of Patent Owner because, as the definition explains “[l]ack of professional experience [can] be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’009 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below.2 See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“is “essential,” Petitioner has still shown a motivation to combine because the proposed combination does not “discard” SIP as Patent Owner contends. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner “argues that a [person of ordinary skill] would discard all of Dua’s SIP teachings and use GlobalPlatform’s system for personalization instead.” PO Resp. 12. However, we agree with Petitioner that this mischaracterizes the proposed combination. See Reply 6–7. As the Petition states, Petitioner relies on Dua’s SIP session to establish the initial connection between the endpoints (between the smart card and a server) and download the application and send application identifying information to the server. See Pet. 22 (describing GlobalPlatform’s receipts transmitted “via a wireless SIP session”), 23 (downloading extensions “during a SIP session”). As Mr. Smith credibly testifies, “Dua teaches utilizing the SIP protocol to connect endpoints,” and “Dua’s SIP networking protocol for connecting endpoints functions like a ‘pipe’ to connect the two endpoints (e.g., smart card and server or host such as Dua’s WCM) together over a network.” Ex. 1046 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶ 15. Moreover, as Mr. Smith clarifies in his Supplemental Declaration, “Dua’s SIP protocol constructs the connection between endpoints, and GlobalPlatform establishes a secure channel within that connection for smart are ‘not intended, in any way, to limit the scope of the present invention[,]” or “[t]he foregoing disclosure and description of the present invention is illustrative and explanatory thereof” as insufficient). card specific communications.” Ex. 1046 ¶ 14; see also Pet. 24–26 (discussing the use of GlobalPlatform to create the secure channel). We find that Mr. Smith credibly testifies that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that in the combination, GlobalPlatform’s processes relying on the exchange of Application Protocol Data Unit (“APDU”) messages would be sent over Dua’s SIP endpoint-to-endpoint connection (“pipe”) because, (1) SIP is derived from HTTP, (2) APDUs are the standard messaging protocol for smart cards, and (3) it was known to transmit APDUs over HTTP.” Ex. 1046 ¶ 16. Mr. Smith supports this assertion with detailed testimony relying on extensive citations to Dua, Ex. 1046 ¶ 17, GlobalPlatform, id. ¶¶ 18, 20, Chen5 (id. ¶ 19), and Thibadeau, id. ¶ 21. We find this testimony was reasoned, detailed, and entitled to substantial weight. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown that in the proposed combination Dua’s SIP protocol would not be “discarded,” but rather, would remain an integral part of the combination. See Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 14–21.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“(b) “Secure Element” Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to show that the combination teaches or suggests a “secure element,” as required by the claims. PO Resp. 18–20. Patent Owner argues that, although “a smart card may be a secure element . . . the ’009 patent does not state or suggest that all smart cards are secure elements.” Id. at 19. Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would therefore understand that a smart card may be a secure element only if it provides the necessary security, such as by being tamper-resistant.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 72–75). Patent Owner contends that “[w]hile some smart cards meet this definition, not every smart card will, and [Petitioner] does not show otherwise.” Id. We find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Dua and GlobalPlatform accounts for this limitation. To begin with, we do not find the testimony of Mr. Gomez on this point to be credible or entitled to much weight. In his Declaration, Mr. Gomez contends that “a secure element must include a heightened level of security and be tamper-proof,” Ex. 2007 ¶ 73, and that “while some secure elements may be smart cards, not all smart cards are secure elements,” id. ¶ 71. Yet, on cross examination, Mr. Gomez repeatedly contended that smart cards and secure elements were “distinctly different” and “separate and unrelated.” Ex. 1045, 53:16–54:1. Mr. Gomez continued to assert that “the common understanding was that a secure element . . . has a very strong level of security beyond what you would normally find . . . in products at the time, such as smart cards.” Id. at 55:22–56:8. This cross examination testimony is inconsistent with his prior testimony and with the Specification of the ’009 patent, which explains that the secure element “may be in [the] form of a smart card.” Ex. 1001, 6:59. There is no indication in the Specification that a “secure element” was a special product “beyond” what was available at the time. If anything, the Specification indicates that the term “secure element” is not intended to capture something different than a smart card, but rather a broad genus of items that include a smart card. See id. at 6:59–61 (“the [secure element] may be in [the] form of a smart card, an integrated circuit (IC) or a software module upgradable by overwriting some of all of the components therein.”). Even if we accept the Patent Owner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would . . . understand that a smart card may be a secure element only if it provides the necessary security, such as by being tamper-resistant,”6 we find that Petitioner has shown that the GlobalPlatform-compliant smart cards meet this standard. As Mr. Smith explains in great detail, supported by numerous citations to the prior art, GlobalPlatform-compliant smart cards have and support numerous features designed to make them tamper-resistant. See Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 30–36. We find this testimony wellreasoned, well-supported, and give it substantial weight. Patent Owner argues that the use of a key set cannot make a secure element tamper resistant because a key set is separately recited in the claim. However, Mr. Gomez confirmed that “a key-based encryption scheme” was “one way” to satisfy the claim term “secure element.” Ex. 1045, 57:7–11. Indeed, the only security for the “secure element” mentioned in the Specification is that the secure element “in the mobile device is installed with a set of default 6 Patent Owner and Mr. Gomez have repeatedly stated that no construction of this term is necessary. See Tr. 49:3–18; Ex. 1045, 55:9–56:9. We find no need to construe it because we find that even under the “understanding” that Patent Owner has offered the prior art teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“is “essential,” Petitioner has still shown a motivation to combine because the proposed combination does not “discard” SIP as Patent Owner contends. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner “argues that a [person of ordinary skill] would discard all of Dua’s SIP teachings and use GlobalPlatform’s system for personalization instead.” PO Resp. 12. However, we agree with Petitioner that this mischaracterizes the proposed combination. See Reply 6–7. As the Petition states, Petitioner relies on Dua’s SIP session to establish the initial connection between the endpoints (between the smart card and a server) and download the application and send application identifying information to the server. See Pet. 22 (describing GlobalPlatform’s receipts transmitted “via a wireless SIP session”), 23 (downloading extensions “during a SIP session”). As Mr. Smith credibly testifies, “Dua teaches utilizing the SIP protocol to connect endpoints,” and “Dua’s SIP networking protocol for connecting endpoints functions like a ‘pipe’ to connect the two endpoints (e.g., smart card and server or host such as Dua’s WCM) together over a network.” Ex. 1046 (Smith Supp. Decl.) ¶ 15. Moreover, as Mr. Smith clarifies in his Supplemental Declaration, “Dua’s SIP protocol constructs the connection between endpoints, and GlobalPlatform establishes a secure channel within that connection for smart are ‘not intended, in any way, to limit the scope of the present invention[,]” or “[t]he foregoing disclosure and description of the present invention is illustrative and explanatory thereof” as insufficient). card specific communications.” Ex. 1046 ¶ 14; see also Pet. 24–26 (discussing the use of GlobalPlatform to create the secure channel). We find that Mr. Smith credibly testifies that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that in the combination, GlobalPlatform’s processes relying on the exchange of Application Protocol Data Unit (“APDU”) messages would be sent over Dua’s SIP endpoint-to-endpoint connection (“pipe”) because, (1) SIP is derived from HTTP, (2) APDUs are the standard messaging protocol for smart cards, and (3) it was known to transmit APDUs over HTTP.” Ex. 1046 ¶ 16. Mr. Smith supports this assertion with detailed testimony relying on extensive citations to Dua, Ex. 1046 ¶ 17, GlobalPlatform, id. ¶¶ 18, 20, Chen5 (id. ¶ 19), and Thibadeau, id. ¶ 21. We find this testimony was reasoned, detailed, and entitled to substantial weight. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown that in the proposed combination Dua’s SIP protocol would not be “discarded,” but rather, would remain an integral part of the combination. See Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 14–21.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 9,240,009 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,240,009 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Traxcell Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2022-00669 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the six asserted combinations of Bruce and Hancock with Meadows, Knockeart, and/or Moles.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Either proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation, although the conclusions reached in the decision would be the same even if Patent Owner’s proposal was adopted.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner states, “[n]o claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not propose any claim constructions. PO Resp. 3–4. For purposes of this Decision, we do not construe any claim terms. D.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“not a communications device is a mobile wireless communications device, the reference states that the system can be used with a “landline or a mobile cellular telephone subscriber.” Ex. 1006, 3:49; see also Ex. 1006, 5:58–60 (“[t]elephone calls are primarily originated from either traditional fixed location landline telephones or mobile wireless telephones”); Ex. 1006, 5:66–6:3 (“[t]o identify the geographical location of the caller . . . several 6 Patent Owner argues that Hancock does not teach this claim requirement, and we have previously found that Hancock does not so teach. PO Resp. 15 (citing Van Essen Decl. ¶ 56); Google LLC v. Traxcell Techs., LLC, IPR2021-01004, Paper 7 at 18 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2021). techniques can be used depending on the particular telephone (i.e., landline or mobile telephone) originating the call”). The same system is used in Bruce for both fixed and mobile devices, and the same telephone number (411) is used whether fixed or mobile. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 1, 3:63–66, 5:56–58, 5:63–67; Braasch Decl. ¶ 60). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on a patent to Karp, et al. as background art, to confirm that it was well known that the phone number of a caller is used to identify whether or not a call is on a mobile phone, and that the use of Automatic Number Identification (ANI) is not limited to fixed landlines. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1009, Fig. 11B, 12:20–22; Braasch Decl. ¶ 70); Reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 1009, 1:39–44, 12:24–27).7 The record further includes support for Petitioner’s contention in the form of declarant testimony that explains, “[a] POSITA would have recognized that to select an appropriate location system 17 for a communication received over a landline or wireless network, the switch 16 or the location system 17 would first identify whether a request was made from a landline or a wireless device.” Braasch Decl. ¶ 70 (cited in the Petition at page 24); see also id. ¶ 71 (explaining that the determination would be made even if the incoming call uses a landline or a modem). We are persuaded by this evidence and credit the Braasch testimony in this regard.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence summarized above (which we adopt) and determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combination of Bruce and Hancock, and the preponderance of the evidence establishes that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make that combination.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 9,918,196 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,918,196 - T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Traxcell Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2021-01552 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the six combinations of references listed in the decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Either proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation, although the conclusions reached in the decision would be the same even if Patent Owner’s proposal was adopted.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner states, “[n]o claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not propose any claim constructions. PO Resp. 3–4. For purposes of this Decision, we do not construe any claim terms. D.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. The Combination of Bruce and Hancock Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the geographic location-based systems of Bruce and Hancock, resulting in a combination that would have rendered obvious, for example, independent claim 1. Pet. 14–19. Petitioner first argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add to the Bruce system, the capability of accessing routing information via the Internet, as disclosed in Hancock. Pet. 15–17. Petitioner cites the fact that one embodiment of Bruce uses a computer with a modem to allow a user to obtain directions from the system, and that providing such access via the Internet, as disclosed in Hancock, would have provided well-known advantages of higher data rates, storage capacity, and additional Internet services. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 1:38–40; Ex. 1008, 42:38–42; Ex. 1011, 24:16–19, 25:1–7, 27:39–67, 32:32–41; Braasch Decl. ¶¶ 46–49). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to improve Bruce by providing more flexibility and variety in the ways for entering a destination, for which directions are requested, as disclosed in Hancock. Pet. 17–18. For example, Hancock discloses the ability to enter the names of businesses, to specify specific distances to destinations, and to use menus of possible destination locations. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 2:40–43, 8:2–3; Ex. 1011, 8:66–9:3, 13:7–15, 28:49–29:1, 30:12– 14; Braasch Decl. ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to improve Bruce by using Hancock’s improved methods of formatting requests for directions via the use of data packets. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1011, 27:27–39, 27:64–67, 28:58–65; Braasch Decl. ¶¶ 52–54). Patent Owner does not specifically respond to these arguments. See generally PO Resp. We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence summarized” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“As to the above claims, Patent Owner repeats its arguments with respect to claim 1 (which, as discussed above, are not persuasive), and submits additional arguments directed to claims 5, 10, and 11. PO Resp. 21–23. In regard to claim 5, Patent Owner argues that “PSTN” in the claims means “a plurality of PSTNs which service to provide location of fixed location phones,” and that Bruce provides only one PSTN. Id. at 22 (citing Van Essen Decl. ¶ 83). This argument is unpersuasive as not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Reply 15. For claims 10 and 11, Patent Owner argues that the disclosure in Bruce providing for searches for establishments “in the proximity of the caller” is not a teaching of searches for nearby businesses because “[t]he caller is distinct from ‘business.’” Id. at 23 (citing Van Essen Decl. ¶¶ 85–86) (emphasis omitted). We are unpersuaded by this argument, because a nearby business is within the proximity of a caller. Reply 16. We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence summarized above (which we adopt) and we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Bruce and Hancock.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 9,918,196 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,918,196 - Solaredge Technologies Ltd. v. Koolbridge Solar, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00013 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable under § 103(a), principally over Iwata and Bower, with additional references applied to dependent claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, and three years of design experience with power electronics, including experience designing power converters.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–23). Patent Owner neither expressly addresses Petitioner’s proposal nor proffers its own articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. But Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Foty, states that he “do[es] not dispute the Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 43. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner
“We have considered Patent Owner’s reiterated argument, and note that the only specific example Patent Owner identifies relates to whether Iwata’s series-connected inverters include transformers. See PO Resp. 9–10. Below, we discuss the propriety of Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Baker’s testimony within the specific context of that example. See infra § II.E.2.a. More generally, we disagree with Patent Owner’s broader implication that there must be perfect alignment between a petition and a supporting expert declaration because “[m]erely repeating an argument from the Petition in the declaration of a proposed expert does not give that argument enhanced probative value.” Kinetic Techs, Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc., IPR2014- 00529, Paper 8 at 15 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2014); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (according “little weight” to declaration testimony that contains a verbatim restatement of a petition’s arguments without additional supporting evidence or reasoning). Indeed, expert discussion of evidence with technical reasoning to support conclusions is a valuable and important part of expert testimony that our regulations expect to be included in a declaration. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quoting Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “[a]ll claim terms herein should be given their ordinary and customary meaning to a [person of ordinary skill in the art], consistent with the prosecution history, as they would be given in a civil action.” Pet. 21 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Patent Owner states that it “does not believe any explicit claim construction is required to resolve the issues presented in the Petition.” PO Resp. 2. We agree with the parties and do not find it necessary expressly to construe any term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and 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))).6” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We find Petitioner’s reasoning sufficient. In particular, Dr. Baker’s testimony provides rational underpinning for Petitioner’s reasoning to combine the teachings of Iwata and Bower as proposed. Patent Owner disputes limited aspects of Petitioner’s analysis, which we consider below.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,784,710 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,784,710 - Solaredge Technologies Ltd. v. Koolbridge Solar, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00007 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 and 20 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 8–10 over Tracy, claims 4 and 11 over Tracy and Fujimoto, claims 6 and 20 over Tracy and De, claim 7 over Tracy and Bond, and …
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION In the Decision to Institute we declined to treat any of the claim terms as mean-plus-function terms because the terms have an ordinary and customary meaning. Dec. to Inst. 14–15. Neither party has proposed any other claim constructions. We apply the plain and ordinary meaning in this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“Dr. Baker’s testimony is persuasive evidence that Tracy discloses the claimed floating DC power source, as Tracy’s terminals are not permanently connected to the neutral.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelOther
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner unrealistically reads this definition to mean there can never be a connection to ground or neutral, because Patent Owner ignores the disclosure in the ’822 patent of temporarily connecting one or the other of the floating DC sources to neutral, as discussed above. Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:52–60, 4:27–40, 10:44–47, 11:1–7, 11:25–28, 23:47–52; Ex. 1074, Baker Reply Decl. ¶¶ 12–13).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 8,937,822 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,937,822 - Solaredge Technologies Ltd. v. Koolbridge Solar, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00010 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 14–19 are unpatentable under § 103 based on combinations of Suzui, Boniface, and Gilmore, with additional references for claims 16, 17, and 19.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or similar discipline,” and “three years of design experience with power electronics, including experience designing power converters.” Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 20–23). Patent Owner does not propose any definition for a POSITA, and Dr. Foty states that he “does not dispute the Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” See generally PO Resp.; Ex. 2006 ¶ 42. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA at the time of the claimed invention because, based on the record, this proposal is consistent with the ’822 patent, the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“We determine that it is unnecessary to construe any claim term expressly to resolve the disputed issues before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and 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)). As Petitioner contends that Suzui discloses this limitation (Pet. 42–43), we do not ignore this limitation but address the limitation based on the parties’ explicit arguments with respect to Suzui.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the claimed detector must look for “a specific unusual current with specific characteristics, i.e., ‘with said common mode waveform at said characteristic frequency.’” PO Resp. 15. In particular, claim 14 recites “creating” a common-mode AC probe signal waveform “from said DC to AC converter at a characteristic repetition frequency that is in phase on both said DC positive and negative input conductors,” and the claimed detector is adapted to “detect with said” common mode waveform at said characteristic repetition frequency. See Ex. 1401, 43:21–37 (emphasis added). That is, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention that the claimed detector “must look for” the unusual current with the common mode waveform, claim 14 recites that the common mode wave form is created from the DC to AC converter at the characteristic frequency, and the detector then detects the unusual current with said created common mode waveform at the characteristic frequency. Id. As pointed out by Petitioner during oral argument, “the existence of a common [mode] waveform in Suzui is not in dispute.” Tr. 9:23–24. We find persuasive Petitioner’s reliance on Suzui to disclose “creating a common mode AC probe signal waveform from a DC to AC converter at a characteristic repetition frequency” as recited in claim 14. Pet. 37. As Dr. Baker testified, “[f]rom the DC input voltage output by solar battery 1, Suzui’s inverter generates an output AC waveform—specifically a 60 Hz, sine-shaped alternating current” which “corresponds to the claimed ‘AC output having an output waveform with an output repetition frequency,” which is then “received by Suzui’s single-phase three-wire commercial power system 3.” See Ex. 1402 ¶ 192 (citing Ex. 1406, 3:26–30, 4:60–65, 5:15–24, 5:32–40, 5:51–67, 7:43–52, Fig. 2). Further, we are also persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Suzui and Gilmore teach “detecting an imbalance current generated by the common-mode voltage.” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Pet. 37–42; Ex. 1474 45–46). In particular, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention, supported by Dr. Baker’s declaration, that Suzui’s current detector 10 “detects an imbalance between the currents flowing in the positive and negative DC conductors (zero-phase current) of the inverter (the claimed ‘a detector adapted to detect an unusual current’),” which “is generated by the 120 Hz AC voltage to ground (the claimed ‘with said common mode waveform at said characteristic repetition frequency’).” Pet. 37; see also Ex. 1402 ¶ 205. That is, we are persuaded by Dr. Baker’s testimony that, “because Suzui’s current detector 10 detects an imbalance in the zero-phase current of the DC circuit of the inverter,” a POSITA would understand Suzui to disclose “a detector adapted to detect an unusual current,” wherein “because this ‘unusual current’ is generated by the AC voltage to ground that has a frequency of 120 Hz,” the POSITA would also understand Suzui to disclose the claimed “with said common mode waveform at said characteristic repetition frequency.” Ex. 1402 ¶ 205 (citing Ex. 1406, 5:47–51, 7:46–61, Fig. 2).” slip op. at 29
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“10. Instead, we are persuaded by Dr. Baker’s testimony that Suzui’s solar battery 1 “is formed as a solar battery string by connecting a plurality of solar battery modules 1M1 to 1Mx in series such that an appropriate voltage can be output as the input voltage to the system interconnection inverter 2.” Ex. 1402 ¶ 186 (citing Ex. 1406, 4:66–5:2). We find persuasive Dr. Baker’s testimony that Suzui’s solar battery modules 1M1 to 1Mx are “arranged in an array,” wherein a POSITA “would understand that they are composed of photovoltaic cells.” Id. at ¶ 187 (citing Ex. 1406, 4:59–5:6, Figs. 2, 8).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 8,937,822 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,937,822 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Equo IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2021-00943 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5–9, 11, 12, 16–20, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over the 300 reference, the 321 reference, and Ericsson.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“Generally, Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Cooklev’s corresponding testimony do not give sufficient weight to the 300 reference. See id. at 49–52. Rather, they are heavily focused on what the 321 reference alone expressly teaches or suggests. See id.; Cooklev Decl. ¶¶ 140–148, 180–181. Because Petitioner relies on the 300 reference together with the 321 reference in its obviousness rationale, we disagree with these arguments (PO Resp. 49–52), and we give little weight to Dr. Cooklev’s corresponding testimony on this issue (Cooklev Decl. ¶¶ 140–148, 180– 181). c) Experts versus a POSITA Patent Owner notes that “both parties agree that the members of the 3GPP Working Groups were experts in the field—with more expertise and understanding than a POSITA.” PO Resp. 49 (emphasis added). Dr. Cooklev testified, “I disagree that a POSITA—who under all accounts would have less expertise than the members of the 3GPP Working Groups—would recognize a problem and believe that the solution was obvious when the Working Group members themselves struggled with the same issue.” Cooklev Decl. ¶ 194, cited in PO Resp. 49. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis relies on the skill level of an expert, not a POSITA. PO Resp. 56. Patent Owner, though, provides insufficient evidence to support the assertion that the Working Group members struggled with this issue. See id. at 49. To the contrary, the background knowledge, reflected in the 300 reference, demonstrates that, in the RAP, the UE must receive a RAR before it transmits Message 3. See, Pet. 33–34 (citing Min Decl. ¶ 102; Ex. 1002, as “correction” (category F), instead of an “addition of feature” (category B) or a “functional modification of feature” (category C). Ex. 1011, 1. The “reason for change” in Qualcomm’s change request also lacks any indication of a struggle: According to the original intention, it is clarified that the transmission of the RACH Msg3 performed only in response to an uplink grant in the Random Access Response. The current specification also allows transmission of Msg3 in response to UL grant on PDCCH.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“PO Resp. 44–45. Patent Owner claims that its definition is better than Petitioner’s because (1) it is not “based on a rigid formula that does not credit significant industry or research experience, which may substitute for formal academic work” and (2) it references additional degrees and coursework. Id. at 45. Patent Owner, though, does not explain how those differences affect the obviousness analysis in this case. See id. Instead, Patent Owner argues that, “even under Samsung’s proposal, the level of ordinary skill in the art does not comport with Samsung’s assertion of obviousness” because the members of the 3GGP working groups were experts, not persons having ordinary skill. PO Resp. 56. That is, Patent Owner’s argument does not depend on the specific differences between the proposed definitions. See id. Rather, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner implicitly applies a level of skill that exceeds the ones proposed by either party. See id. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument for the reasons discussed in Section II.C of this Decision. We see no differences between the parties’ proposed definitions that would affect our analysis. Considering the full record developed during trial, including our review of the ’120 patent and the types of problems and solutions described there and in the cited prior art, we apply Petitioner’s definition in this Decision. Pet. 12. But our conclusion would be the same under Patent Owner’s.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Petitioner asserts, The Board should construe these two related terms [in claims 1 and 12] such that this “transmitting” feature requires transmitting the Msg3 data only when the three claimed conditions are met: (1) the UL Grant is received on the specific message, (2) the specific message is the random access response message, and (3) there is data stored in a Msg3 buffer of the user equipment. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 56–57). In Petitioner’s view, the plain language supports the “only when” construction because “the only time after the UL Grant is received on the specific message that the user equipment transmits Msg3 buffer data is only when the specific message is the random access response message and there is data stored in a Msg3 buffer of the user equipment.” Id. at 13. Patent Owner argues for a broader construction. PO Resp. 40; Sur- reply 1–7. In Patent Owner’s view, narrowing the claim by adding the word in other IPRs involving a related patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,881,236),7 the word “only” clarified when the system transmits Message 3 data, but this is not needed here because the claim recites four transmitting limitations that cover all possible scenarios. PO Resp. 40. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s narrow construction is “an effort to introduce a potential non-infringement position” in this IPR. Sur-reply 5. In Patent Owner’s view, “No word or phrase from the challenged claims requires construction for resolution of this IPR.” PO Resp. 36; Sur-reply 4. During the oral hearing, both parties agreed that we need not construe the claims to reach the unpatentability issues. See Tr. 43:14–17 (Patent Owner’s counsel); 64:18–22 (Petitioner’s counsel). We need not resolve the dispute because Petitioner has shown that the” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“properly considers the 300 reference together with the 321 reference because the 300 reference describes a process not clearly documented by the 321 reference. Pet. 6. In particular, the 321 reference, individually, does not clearly describe whether a UE transmits Message 3 when it receives an uplink grant on a message other than an RAR. See id. But together the references show that (1) the Message 3 transmission occurs only if the RAP is ongoing and the Message 3 buffer has a MAC PDU and (2) Message 3 transmission requires a prior UL Grant received in an RAR. See id. at 34–35; Min. Decl. ¶ 104. Specifically, the 321 reference states, “If the UE receives both a grant for its RA-RNTI and a grant for its C-RNTI, the UE may choose to continue with either the grant for its RA-RNTI or the grant for its C-RNTI.” Ex. 1003 § 5.4.1, quoted in Pet. 32. The 321 reference calls the RA-RNTI grant an UL Grant in an RAR and calls the C-RNTI grant the UL Grant in a PDCCH. See, e.g., id. §§ 3.1 (“UE shall monitor the PDCCH after the uplink message containing the C-RNTI MAC”), 4.5.2 (“RA-RNTI for Random Access Response on DL-SCH”), cited in Min Decl. ¶ 99. Dr. Min testifies that, in the 321 reference, the UE chooses either the UL Grant received in an RAR or the UL Grant received in a PDCCH. Min Decl. ¶ 95. But, according to Dr. Min, the 321 reference clearly indicates that UL Grant received in the RAR is the correct one to use during the RAP. Id. ¶ 96. Dr. Min explains that the 321 reference teaches that the UE processes the received UL Grant value after successfully receiving RARs, but the 321 reference is silent about looking for a grant in a PDCCH during the RAP. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 § 5.1.4; Ex. 1045, TS 36.213 v8.3.0, § 6.1). Dr. Min testifies that a UL Grant received in a PDCCH during a RAP “would be highly unreliable” and should be discarded. Id. ¶¶ 96–97. So the 321 reference alone provides strong evidence supporting Petitioner’s assertion that it would have been obvious to transmit Message 3 only when (1) Message 3 data was available to transmit and (2) the UE had received an UL Grant in an RAR. See Pet. 35. To the extent that the language of the 321 reference is ambiguous on” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 10,517,120 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,517,120 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Wrinkl, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 23, 2022 · IPR2021-00883 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9, 11–20, 22–28, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over Ji, Sarafa, and Oh.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“with the prior art before us. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Accordingly, we apply the level of skill identified by Petitioner. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that the level of skill it identifies differs very little from Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, and our analysis below would be the same under either party’s identified level of skill.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“PO Resp. 67. As with the dispute regarding Petitioner’s proposed combination of Sarafa with Ji, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that only Ji’s message operation bar approach makes sense for adding another feature, such as for adding features from Oh. For the reasons discussed above in Section III.C.4.b).(4).(b), Petitioner persuades us otherwise. c) Conclusion Regarding Claims 1–9, 11–20, 22–28, and 30 Petitioner supports its position that claims 1–9, 11–20, 22–28, and 30 would have been obvious over Ji, Sarafa, Oh by explaining in detail its position that it would have been obvious to combine Ji’s, Sarafa’s, and Oh’s teachings, as well as its position that, in combination, the references teach every limitation of independent claims claims 1–9, 11–20, 22–28, and 30. Pet. 14–72. Having reviewed all of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9, 11–20, 22–28, and 30 of the ’192 patent would have been obvious over Ji, Sarafa, and Oh. Pet. 4–72; PO Resp. 6–69; Pet. Reply 1–25; PO Sur-reply 4–25.” slip op. at 80
Patent outcomesUS 10,728,192 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,728,192 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Wrinkl, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 23, 2022 · IPR2021-00882 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Ji and Sarafa; the Board did not reach the Ji, Sarafa, and Oh ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredMixed
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that the arguments in sub-section 2 on pages 8–9 of Petitioner’s Reply are improper new arguments. Rather, we find these arguments properly elaborate on the Petition, in response to the proposed construction of “link” in Patent Owner’s Response. Although we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not include the phrase “quoted message identifier,” Sarafa explains that the quoted message cited in the Petition and the “quoted message identifier” are part of the same message package. E.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 83. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s citation of the quoted message in the Petition and then the quoted message identifier in the Reply is like if I have a patent to some kind of car and someone points to a Porsche and says, look, the Porsche has an engine, and then we argue about an engine, and then they come back and say, well, we're referring to the turbo charger in the engine in their reply, even though they never mention turbo charger, and said that's the key, it's like, well, we weren't on notice of that. Tr. 71:2–9. We find this unpersuasive. Patent Owner does not explain why a reply that cites a subcomponent of an item cited in the petition would necessarily go beyond properly elaborating on the arguments in the petition.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s proposed definition reasonable and consistent with the prior art before us. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Accordingly, we apply the level of skill identified by Petitioner. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that the level of skill it identifies differs very little from Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, and our analysis below would be the same under either party’s identified level of skill.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“In order to resolve the parties’ patentability dispute, we only need to resolve whether the correct construction of “link” requires using an address specifically (rather than data generally) to “point to” a message. We find the record lacks persuasive support for such a construction. Looking to the ’198 patent itself first, neither the claims nor the Specification says anything about “point[ing] to” a message or another resource. See generally Ex. 1001. The ’198 patent mentions “address” only once, and that passage refers to a person’s address, not a message’s address. Id. at 12:29–33. Additionally, Patent Owner does not cite any other intrinsic evidence, such as the prosecution history of the ’198 patent, supporting a construction of “link” requiring a message’s address. See, e.g., PO Resp. 10–12; PO Sur-reply 2–7.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ji and Sarafa. As explained below, Petitioner persuades us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Ji teaches automatic scrolling, and that Sarafa’s automatic scrolling would have beneficially complemented Ji’s. Pet. 21–22; Pet. Reply 14–17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–77; Ex. 1018 ¶ 47. Additionally, regardless of whether Ji teaches automatic scrolling in paragraph 92, Petitioner persuades us that Ji and Sarafa address similar problems related to tracking and understanding convoluted conversations in messaging systems. See Pet. 16–21; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64, 65, 70, 73, 74. As Dr. Cockburn testifies, Ji emphasizes the problem that users cannot quickly find and understand messages in complicated message streams. Ex. 1003 ¶ 64 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 2); Pet. 16. Petitioner also persuades us that Sarafa addresses such problems, at least in part, by expressly teaching certain advantages of its scroll-back feature, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it advantageous to add Sarafa’s scroll-back feature to Ji’s system. See Pet. 18–19; 21–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70, 74. For example, addressing the same problems discussed in Ji, Sarafa explains that its scroll back feature would facilitate a user’s ability to understand a complicated conversation because “[m]aking available the context of a quoted message may benefit a user in understanding a quoted message by providing messages that were displayed before and/or after the quoted message so as to play the quoted message in context.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 90; Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Similarly, Sarafa explains that its scroll back feature “provid[es] additional context to users . . . , improving the user experience of quoted messages for its users.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 23; Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. We find that these disclosed benefits would have provided compelling motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to add Sarafa’s scroll back feature to Ji’s messaging system. Pet. 19–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 73–77. Indeed, as Dr. Cockburn explains, “[s]ince Ji also quotes the original message in the reply, Sarafa would therefore be a natural complement to Ji.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 77.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 9,860,198 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,860,198
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.