• EMC Corporation v. Acqis LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2016 · IPR2014-01469 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 24 and 31–33 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove obviousness over either asserted reference combination, including failure to establish Bogaerts as prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” to mean “a data signal communication with an interconnected peripheral component.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner agrees with the construction in the Decision on Institution that the claim term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” means “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) industry standard bus transaction.” PO Resp. 21–22. We see no reason now to deviate from the construction in the Decision on Institution. The evidence indicates that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” refers to a particular industry standard, not just any communication with an interconnected peripheral component. Industry literature and dictionaries use the proper noun “Peripheral Component Interconnect” and the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry specification for a local bus. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 1; Ex. 2002, 6–7; Ex. 2003, 7–8. The challenged claims recite “Peripheral Component Interconnect” as a proper noun and abbreviate it as “PCI,” indicating that the challenged claims use those terms consistent with the understood industry meaning. Ex. 1001, col. 27, ll. 24–25, col. 28, ll. 35–36; see Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The written description similarly uses the abbreviation “PCI” to refer to a particular industry standard, and uses the common noun “peripheral bus” to refer to a generic peripheral bus. Compare Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 31–33 (“the present invention may interface two PCI or PCI-like buses”), with id. at col. 7, ll. 4–6 (“Additionally, the host controller is coupled to a clock control logic, a configuration signal, and a peripheral bus.”) (emphasis added). Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Bruce Young, acknowledge that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)” refers to an industry standard. Ex. 1003 ¶ 58; Ex. 2006, 1, 3; Ex. 2031, 16:8–12. The evidence Petitioner identifies in support of its proposed construction is the claim construction order issued in ACQIS LLC v. Appro International, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-00148 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2011). Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1013). In that case, though, the parties did not appear to dispute that the term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI)” refers to an industry standard. See Ex. 1013, 7 (“The parties’ primary dispute is whether the term is limited to the conventional, parallel PCI Local Bus, and, therefore excludes PCI Express bus architecture and bus transaction protocol.”). Moreover, the district court subsequently reconsidered its construction and clarified that the term “PCI bus transaction” refers to a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Ex. 1030, 8–10. Therefore, we construe the claim term “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) bus transaction” to mean “Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) industry standard bus transaction,” and we construe the claim term “PCI bus transaction” to mean “PCI industry standard bus transaction.”” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Horst outputs address and data bits of a PCI bus transaction in serial form over the TNet links. Pet. 31–34. Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. The TNet processor interface in Horst translates a CPU transaction into a TNet transaction. Ex. 1009, 5 (“The interface to the destination CPU or I/O device provides mapping and validation hardware translating this virtual TNet address to the appropriate physical memory address.”), Figs. 5, 7; Ex. 2021 ¶ 94 (“The TNet Processor Interface generates TNet transactions from CPU front-side bus transactions.”). The TNet processor interface then encodes the TNet transaction using an 8B/9B encoder so that it can be output over the 9-bit serial TNet links. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48, 146; Ex. 1009, 3, Figs. 3, 4 (showing “8B/9B encoder”), Table 1; Ex. 2021 ¶ 105. Petitioner does not identify persuasive evidence indicating that either the CPU transaction or the TNet transaction is a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Pet. 31–34 (citing Ex. 1009, 3–8, Figs. 2, 3, 5, 7–9, Table 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159[24C(i)], 159[24C(iv)], 159[24C(v)], 159[31B(i)], 159[31B(iii)]); Ex. 2021 ¶ 129. Thus, the evidence identified in the Petition does not indicate that the information output by the TNet processor interface over the TNet links includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form. Petitioner points out that, after a TNet transaction is communicated over the TNet links, a TNet bus interface in the console may use information in the TNet transaction to create a PCI industry standard bus transaction if a particular I/O device is connected to a PCI bus. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1009, 7, Fig. 8). But claims 24 and 31 require more than just communicating information over serial channels that subsequently might be used in the console to create a PCI industry standard bus transaction. Claims 24 and 31, when read in light of the specification, require that the information actually communicated over the serial channels includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form. Ex. 1001, col. 20, ll. 60–65, col. 21, ll. 15–21, col. 27, ll. 34–38, col. 28, ll. 34–39; Ex. 2022, 15:12–16:2, 22:11–16. As discussed above, the evidence identified in the Petition does not indicate that the information output by the TNet processor interface over the TNet links includes address and data bits of a PCI industry standard bus transaction in serial form.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner

    “The evidence identified by Patent Owner indicates that the date “2 October 1996” on Bogaerts is when it was submitted to the CERN/LHCC committee. Ex. 2021 ¶¶ 170, 171, 173; Ex. 2026, 12. Although it is possible that Bogaerts was available in the CERN Library at or around the same time, Petitioner has not shown that by a preponderance of the evidence. For example, Petitioner does not cite persuasive evidence indicating that the “Submitted by 2 Oct 1996” entry in the CERN Document Server record means that Bogaerts was available in the CERN Library on that date. Tr. 23:1–12, 25:5–25; Pet. Reply 21–25. In addition, Petitioner acknowledges that the CERN Document Server record itself was not created until December 18, 2014. Tr. 25:5–25; Ex. 2011, 439. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Bogaerts is a prior art printed publication based on its availability in the CERN Library.” slip op. at 17

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “should be excluded for lack of authentication under Fed. R. Evid. 901. PO Mot. 2–6. Federal Rule of Evidence 901 requires that the proponent produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what the proponent claims it is. Here, Patent Owner does not dispute that Exhibit 1011 is what Petitioner claims it is, namely a reference entitled “RD24 Status Report: Application of the Scalable Coherent Interface to Data Acquisition at LHC.” Id. What Patent Owner disputes is whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Bogaerts is prior art with respect to the ’814 patent. Id. Patent Owner attempts to characterize this dispute as a question of authentication, arguing that Petitioner has not produced “evidence that [Exhibit 1011] is a true and correct copy of a publication that was publicly available as of the date asserted by Petitioner.” Id. at 3. But this is a question of sufficiency of proof, not admissibility. Therefore, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1011 is denied.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS RE42,814 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. / Apple Inc. et al. v. Virnetx Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Feb 26, 2016 · IPR2015-01047 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving institution of IPR2016-00167 and its joinder with IPR2015-01047 in place.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “because “the ’167 IPR is entirely devoid of any supporting expert testimony” but expert testimony was supposedly submitted in IPR2015-01047. Req. Reh’g 3–4. As previously explained, however, the record reflects that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and Patent Owner fails to demonstrate sufficiently that the absence of expert testimony alone indicates the failure to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in proving unpatentability of a challenged claim. See, e.g., Decision 4.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingOther

    “(“Req. Reh’g” or “Request”), seeks reversal of the Board’s Decision granting institution in IPR2016-00167 and joining IPR2016-00167 with IPR2015-01047. See Req. Reh’g 1. The Board denies the requested relief.” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 7,490,151
• Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2016 · IPR2014-01162 · APJ Michael P Tierney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–46 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 23, 24, and 27–29 as anticipated by Quadracci ’995; the remaining claims as obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “in the lenticular art “is one who has several years of work experience in the lenticular industry.” Ex. 1013 ¶ 11. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Garcia, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have five or more years of experience in the lenticular lens industry or have an understanding of optical engineering including first and higher order geometric and physical optics principles. Ex. 2001 ¶ 13. The parties’ definitions of one of ordinary skill in the art are substantially the same and neither party states how any difference in the parties’ articulated levels of skill impacts the proceeding. For purpose of this decision, we hold that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record, such that one of skill in the art would have had years of experience in the lenticular lens industry or had an understanding of optical engineering, including higher order geometric and physical optics principles. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Patent Owner does not dispute the proposed constructions, except to state that, consistent with Petitioner’s definition of focal length, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that focal length in the ’467 refers to the “effective focal length” of the lens. PO Resp. 3–4. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions as they are consistent with the Patent Owner’s use of the terms in the ’467 patent Specification. For example, the term gauge thickness is defined in the ’467 patent with reference to g2 of Fig. 1A and states that the thickness is measured from the outermost edge of the curved surface of the lens to the flat back surface of the lens. Ex. 1001, 2:27–33.” slip op. at 7

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

    “describe . . . each and every claim limitation and enable one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Corp., 651 F.3d 1318, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Based on the evidence of record, we credit the ray tracing testimony of Mr. Raymond and are persuaded that the lenticular lens disclosure of Quadracci ’995 is enabling. Specifically, Dr. Garcia acknowledges that focal length formulas other than those recited in the ’467 patent were known in the art and Mr. Raymond demonstrates that, consistent with the teachings of Quadracci ’995, one of ordinary skill in the art could make the described lenses. c. Mr. Raymond’s Gauge Thickness and Focal Length Calculations Patent Owner states that Mr. Raymond’s thickness calculation in his first declaration is either wrong, or it uses an unacceptable index of refraction. Mr. Raymond, in his first declaration, testifies that using the general lens formulas described in the ’467 patent, he arrived at a gauge thickness of 3.4 mils. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 26–28. Mr. Raymond, however, does not disclose the index of refraction that he used to determine the gauge thickness. Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. 42.65(a). As Mr. Raymond failed to disclose the index of refraction used in his calculations and provide support for his selected refraction index, we do not credit Mr. Raymond’s gauge thickness calculation in his first declaration with respect to Quadracci ’995. As discussed below, however, Mr.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,424,467 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,424,467
• Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch Ltd.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Jan 13, 2016 · IPR2015-00710 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing in part and instituted review of claims 1, 2, 5–7, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 20 on anticipation and obviousness grounds; it denied rehearing on the remaining claims.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part

    “When the Petition and Dr. Irazoqui’s testimony are considered in view of the Request for Rehearing, we agree that we overlooked Petitioner’s argument that the “gas flow passage” of Figure 2 extends from the upper surface of insulator 122 to the upper exterior of feedthrough 100, i.e., traverses the space between insulator 122 and washer 124. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:18–21, 7:27–29). Given this evidence associating the “minute” gaps with the space between insulator 122 and washer 124, and in light of our current construction of “laminar delamination gap” requiring no specific dimensions for a “very thin gap,” we are persuaded that the evidence of record sufficiently supports Dr. Irazoqui’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Fraley discloses a “laminar delamination gap,” under a construction requiring a “very thin space.” 3 Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 52 (p. 45). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed below, we grant-in-part and deny-in-part Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and institute inter partes review on the grounds set forth below.” slip op. at 6

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

    “7. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 5–7, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 20 of the ’553 patent are anticipated by Fraley; we are not persuaded that claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 12–15, 18, and 19 of the ’553 patent are anticipated by Fraley.” slip op. at 12

  • BurdenMixed

    “of the Request for Rehearing, we agree that we overlooked Petitioner’s argument that the “gas flow passage” of Figure 2 extends from the upper surface of insulator 122 to the upper exterior of feedthrough 100, i.e., traverses the space between insulator 122 and washer 124. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:18–21, 7:27–29). Given this evidence associating the “minute” gaps with the space between insulator 122 and washer 124, and in light of our current construction of “laminar delamination gap” requiring no specific dimensions for a “very thin gap,” we are persuaded that the evidence of record sufficiently supports Dr. Irazoqui’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Fraley discloses a “laminar delamination gap,” under a construction requiring a “very thin space.” 3 Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 52 (p. 45).” slip op. at 6

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument because Exhibit 2008, relied upon by Patent Owner to support its argument, instructs that “[a] braze fillet should ideally be very small.” Ex. 2008, 1; see also id. at 2 (“Keep the fillet small. Remember, all the good things about a braze joint are happening INSIDE the joint, not in the outside fillets.”). Thus, on this record, regardless of any variation in the size of the braze-fillet, Patent Owner’s evidence and attorney argument do not demonstrate that the space between insulator 122 and washer 124 would be “substantial.” Based on the foregoing, and upon review of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments, the evidence of record, and the supporting testimony of Dr. Irazoqui, we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 16 of the ’553 patent are anticipated by Fraley.” slip op. at 8

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,327,553
• Geox S.P.A. v. Outdry Technologies CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 18, 2015 · IPR2014-01244 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a); the motion to amend claims 16 and 17 is denied for failure to establish written-description support and patentability.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art that would impact our ultimate conclusions. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the references. Pet. 11. Patent Owner asserts that “[w]aterproofing leather is not a sophisticated technology, and the education level of a PHOSITA working in the industry is likely a four year degree.” PO Resp. 30. According to Patent Owner, a PHOSITA likely would have knowledge related to making apparel from leather, waterproofing leather using sprays and liners, as well as knowledge of adhesives and bonding leather apparel, and also knowledge of waterproof breathable membranes of various types. Id. We consider the cited prior art as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which Patent Owner essentially summarizes as the knowledge of a PHOSITA. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding the absence of specific findings on “level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton” slip op. at 5

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

    “interpreted to include either a temporary support that is removed, such as a release sheet, or one that becomes part of the final product, such as a liner. Pet. 11. Patent Owner contends that the term should be construed to be limited to “sheets” because “[n]o other material forms are disclosed other than ‘sheets,’ which include paper and fabric support sheets.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:58–67). According to Patent Owner, the broadest reasonable construction, therefore, “includes any sheet of flexible fabric or fibrous material that is generally fastened to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane.” Id. at 7–8. In the Decision on Institution, we construed “support sheet” as “includ[ing] any material that is generally fastened to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane.” Dec. on Inst. 6. This construction is based on the Specification, which describes multiple embodiments of the support sheet, including a detachable sheet and an internal liner. Ex. 1001, 2:58–67. The Specification also describes the use of “different materials” to make the support sheet. Id. at 2:63–64. Accordingly, we conclude that the broadest reasonable construction of “support sheet” is not limited to a sheet of fabric or fibrous material as Patent Owner contends, but, rather, explicitly includes “different materials” that can be fastened generally to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane. Therefore, consistent with the Specification, we construe “support sheet” to mean a sheet of any material that is generally fastened to the membrane for structural support or as a lining in the finished product and the attachment is either detachable or firmly fastened to the semi-permeable membrane.” slip op. at 6

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

    “required degree of contact between the membrane and the leather in the regions that are between the dots of adhesive. The ’171 patent summarizes the invention as enabling a membrane to be applied directly to leather by providing a surface of the membrane with a glue pattern. Ex. 1001, 1:56–61. The invention is said to “avoid the use of a semipermeable lining and the water penetration between leather and lining.” Id. at 1:60–61. The title of the invention states “Process for Waterproofing Leather” and describes the leather used in the process as “leather waterproofed by said process.” Id. at 2:27–28. These disclosures do not define either the word “waterproof” as used in the Specification or the word “directly” as recited in independent claims 1 and 9 to mean that there is constant contact between the membrane and leather such that no water permeates the leather, as Patent Owner contends. In an embodiment of the invention, heating of the membrane during pressing is said to result in “a perfect adhesion” that does not plug the pores with glue. Id. at 2:31–42–45. Heating of the membrane during pressing is carried out also in the single example disclosed in the ’171 patent. Id. at 3:12. The leather samples in the example are said to have been “waterproofed by the process according to the present invention” and “hot-pressed with a hydrophilic non-porous semi-permeable membrane of polyurethane material having a thickness of 10 µm.” Id. at 3:9–14. These disclosures of an embodiment and an example do not define “directly pressing” or “waterproofing” or even “perfect adhesion” to mean constant contact between the leather and the membrane or that no water permeates the leather. Therefore, we decline to import such limitations into the term “directly pressing” based on Patent Owner’s argument that these properties are present inherently in the embodiment of the example in the ’171 patent. Accordingly, we construe “directly pressing” to mean applying pressure without any intervening materials or layers other than the recited adhesive.” slip op. at 9

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

    “combination of Thornton, Scott, and Hayton. Petitioner has established that Thornton’s process for waterproofing leather by using spaced dots of adhesive in a discontinuous configuration on a semi-permeable membrane that is pressed against the leather meets the requirements of claims 1 and 9 but for the dot density and dot size ranges specified by the claims, respectively. Petitioner also provided a rational underpinning for combining the disclosures of Scott and Hayton, which provide guidance for the density and size of adhesive dots to adhere a semi-permeable membrane to a porous layer. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the teachings of Scott and Hayton are unrelated to the problem of adhering a membrane to a leather layer in view of Thornton’s disclosure that both leather and fabric material are amenable to its process for waterproofing breathable articles of clothing. Ex. 1003, 7:58–62. We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the combination of Thornton, Scott, and Hayton does not disclose all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9. The ranges explicitly disclosed in Hayton overlap with the ranges recited in claims 1 and 9. Patent Owner does not argue, and the Specification does not indicate, any criticality associated with the portion of the ranges that are not encompassed by Hayton’s ranges. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Rather, the claimed ranges appear once in the Specification as a preferred embodiment when the pattern of thermoadhesive glue is dots of polyurethane glue. Ex. 1001, 2:37–42. Patent Owner’s arguments distinguishing Thornton on the basis that it does not teach constant contact between the membrane and the leather in the regions between the spaced dots of adhesive is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above in connection with Patent Owner’s claim construction argument that this is required by the claim term “directly pressing.” In addition, we find that Thornton’s semi-permeable membrane completely covers the leather layer in the sense that the leather layer surface faces the membrane surface to form a composite. Thornton explicitly describes drawing the membrane barrier component over a former, applying adhesive to the outer surface of the film, drawing the outer glove layer onto the former, and bonding the layers by pressing. Ex. 1003, 21:64–22:8; Reply 9. Thornton also discloses layers on the former are placed in register (Ex. 1003, 21:33–35) and that the composite can be formed face to face in sheets (id. at 6:62–66, 7:13–31; Reply 8).” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 6,855,171 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,855,171
• Kaiser Aluminum v. Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 2, 2015 · IPR2014-01002 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 10 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Balmuth1, the Starke Reference, or ’662 Balmuth combined with ’910 Pickens.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Claim Interpretation We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [the claims] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning in view of the specification, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For purposes of our Decision to Institute, we determined that the terms in the challenged claims did not need to be construed expressly, and we see no reason to modify that determination in light of the record developed at trial. B.” slip op. at 4

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

    “Given the complexities involved in developing a thick plate composition from a thin sheet, and the breadth of potential applications within the aerospace industry, we determine that Mr. Balmuth and Dr. Starke fail to provide sufficient reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have attempted to manufacture thick plates having the claimed properties from the thin sheets described in the prior art. See, e.g., InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding expert testimony to be impermissible hindsight for failing to explain what reason or motivation one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had to place the prior art together). In an obviousness determination, we must avoid analyzing the prior art through the prism of hindsight. Instead, we must “cast the mind back to the time the invention was made” and “occupy the mind of one skilled in the art who is presented only with the references, and who is normally guided by the then-accepted wisdom in the art.” W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, Petitioner attempts to imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the claimed invention, when there is insufficient evidence of record to convey or suggest that knowledge. Rather, Petitioner’s arguments that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have only needed to use routine experimentation to manufacture a thick plate alloy having the claimed properties appears to be premised on Petitioner’s knowledge of the ’509 patent itself. See, e.g., Pet. 20 (“In this case, the ’509 patent confirmed that the chemistry in the Balmuth1 reference relating to sheet material could be used for plate products without adjusting the chemistry to arrive at the beneficial strength and toughness properties using merely routine testing procedures.”). Petitioner’s contentions that it would have been obvious to try to manufacture thick plates having the claimed properties and that “one of ordinary skill in the art had a ‘good reason to pursue the known options within his . . . technical grasp’” to do so similarly are insufficient. See Pet. 22; id. at 21–24. The Federal Circuit has held that “a finite number of identified, predictable solutions” may support an inference of obviousness, but “[t]o the extent an art is unpredictable, as the chemical arts often are, KSR’s focus on these ‘identified, predictable solutions’ may present a difficult hurdle because potential solutions are less likely to be genuinely predictable.” Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue known options within this or her technical grasp.”)). As set forth above, we credit Dr. Pickens’s testimony that designing a thick plate alloy product having the claimed properties from a thin sheet alloy product would be costly and unpredictable. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to try to manufacture a thick plate composition with the properties recited in claim 10 of the ’509 patent.” slip op. at 15

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

    “In an obviousness determination, we must avoid analyzing the prior art through the prism of hindsight. Instead, we must “cast the mind back to the time the invention was made” and “occupy the mind of one skilled in the art who is presented only with the references, and who is normally guided by the then-accepted wisdom in the art.” W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, Petitioner attempts to imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the claimed invention, when there is insufficient evidence of record to convey or suggest that knowledge. Rather, Petitioner’s arguments that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have only needed to use routine experimentation to manufacture a thick plate alloy having the claimed properties appears to be premised on Petitioner’s knowledge of the ’509 patent itself. See, e.g., Pet. 20 (“In this case, the ’509 patent confirmed that the chemistry in the Balmuth1 reference relating to sheet material could be used for plate products without adjusting the chemistry to arrive at the beneficial strength and toughness properties using merely routine testing procedures.”). Petitioner’s contentions that it would have been obvious to try to manufacture thick plates having the claimed properties and that “one of ordinary skill in the art had a ‘good reason to pursue the known options within his . . . technical grasp’” to do so similarly are insufficient. See Pet. 22; id. at 21–24. The Federal Circuit has held that “a finite number of identified, predictable solutions” may support an inference of obviousness, but “[t]o the extent an art is unpredictable, as the chemical arts often are, KSR’s focus on these ‘identified, predictable solutions’ may present a difficult hurdle because potential solutions are less likely to be genuinely predictable.” Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue known options within this or her technical grasp.”)). As set forth above, we credit Dr. Pickens’s testimony that designing a thick plate alloy product having the claimed properties from a thin sheet alloy product would be costly and unpredictable. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to try to manufacture a thick plate composition with the properties recited in claim 10 of the ’509 patent.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “to be persuasive. In order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis, “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” PAR Pharma., Inc. v. TWI Pharmas., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Neither Mr. Balmuth’s nor Dr. Starke’s statements regarding the inherent properties of a thick plate with the same chemistry as a thin sheet are supported by sufficient objective evidence or analysis demonstrating that the claimed properties would necessarily be present in the thick plate. Mr. Balmuth and Dr. Starke simply state that such a thick plate would inherently have the properties necessitated by the chemistry involved, without providing sufficient and credible explanations as to why that would be the case. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 13; Ex. 1008 ¶ 32. Mr. Balmuth, for example, states that “it is generally understood that the strength and fracture toughness properties of a plate are less than those of a sheet having similar chemistry,” but that “one of ordinary skill in the art would predict improved properties for a plate upon a showing of improved properties in a sheet having similar chemistry,” and does not expound upon the reasons why a person skilled in the art would understand that to mean that the thick plate would display the same mechanical properties as the thin sheet. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 14. Based upon the evidence presented, we find that the opinions of Mr. Balmuth and Dr. Starke are not persuasive as they are not supported by the evidence of record. 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.”); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (stating a lack of objective support for an expert opinion “may render the testimony of little probative value in [a patentability] determination”). Patent Owner, in contrast, provides reasoning as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that a thick plate would have similar properties to a thin sheet having the same chemistry. PO Resp. 13–14, 34–35, 37–40, 42–44. For example, Patent Owner notes that since according to Mr. Balmuth you ‘don’t have the ability’ or ‘any interest’ in measuring toughness in the S-T direction in sheet, Petitioner has not established that the strength and toughness properties in sheet would necessarily be predictive of the strength and toughness properties of plate, such as described in Claim 10. Id. at 14. Dr. Pickens also testified to the complexities involved in developing thick plate aluminum-lithium alloys: For example, quench sensitivity, stress-corrosion cracking resistance, in plane anisotropy, through thickness heterogeneity, and lower short transverse fracture toughness are a few factors that make developing thick plate aluminum-lithium alloys very complicated. Furthermore, lithium lowers the thermal conductivity of aluminum which is problematic in several areas. Heat is more difficult to extract during direct-chill casting thereby exacerbating metallurgical segregation problems. Hot rolling can break down segregation, such as heterogeneous segregations at grain boundaries, so that it may be less harmful, although there is a practical limit on how thick aluminum alloy rolling ingot can be cast. The reduction ratio, i.e. scalped ingot thickness to final product gauge, is an important real-world processing variable when developing a thick plate aluminum lithium alloy. Ex. 2043 ¶ 11; see also PO Resp. 16–17 (discussing the “recognition in the art of complex differences between sheet and thick plate”). Patent Owner further notes that Dr. Pickens testified “that he would not have been motivated to add Mn in the claimed amount to an Al-Cu-Li-Mg-Ag alloy with a thickness of at least about 3 inches, or scale up a sheet alloy to the” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,229,509 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,229,509
• Fiserv, Inc. v. Datatreasury CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2015 · CBM2014-00088 · APJ William V Saindon · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 16, 18, 22, 25, 26, 29, 36, 38–43, 50, 51, 55, 62, and 63 are unpatentable as anticipated by Campbell; the remaining instituted claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1062–1065, filed by Petitioner on April 7, 2015, over two months after Petitioner filed its Reply and 22 days before oral hearing. PO Mot. Excl. 2–3. Petitioner characterizes its submission as “supplemental information” and “apologizes for its oversight” of the “minor procedural defect” of not seeking authorization to file a motion for supplemental information. Pet. Opp. Mot. Excl. 2. We dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude because we hereby order the expungement of Exhibits 1062–1065 for being filed without prior authorization.” slip op. at 8

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

    “before (Jack Henry CBM, Paper 17, 9–10).6 PO Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner notes that, if we do not adopt that construction, it will “abide by the Board’s decision.” Id. at 21. We decline to adopt the district court construction, a construction previously considered and not adopted, in the absence of arguments explaining why we should adopt that construction, and in the presence of a statement that Patent Owner will abide by our construction should we not choose to adopt that construction. Upon consideration of the record before us, we maintain that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “subsystem identification information” is “information that identifies a subsystem.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “With a full record, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position. Campbell does not state that only the image is encrypted. Instead, Campbell states that “information [is] encrypted . . . to provide security for the images transported.” Ex. 1019, 5:55–58 (emphasis added). Thus, Campbell uses the terms information and image to refer to different collections of data. Earlier in that column, Campbell also explains what it means by “information,” and it is clear that this information is not just images but rather includes “information [that] accompan[ies] those images.” Id. at 5:25–26 (emphasis added). For example, the information identifies the “sending institution,” “receiving institution,” and “the disposition of the check.” Id. at 5:26–31. As we discussed in a prior claim construction of this term, we are persuaded that information identifying the sending institution is a SSID. See Jack Henry CBM, Paper 37, 8–11. Thus, when this information is encrypted, it is an encrypted SSID, as required by claim 1. See also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–65, 78–84, 91 (Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Knox, testifying that the encrypted information in Campbell identifies the receiving institution). Patent Owner argues that Campbell discloses that the controller may be configured to handle encrypted information, which means that it “does not necessarily encrypt subsystem information” and that encryption is not “necessarily always . . . accomplished.” PO Resp. 32–34.14 Patent Owner does not provide an explanation as to how this, even if true, would preclude anticipation: Campbell would still disclose encrypted SSIDs if it disclosed the encryption as a capability but not a necessity of the system. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The law of anticipation does not require that the reference ‘teach’ what the subject patent teaches. . . . . [I]t is only necessary that the claims under attack, as construed by the court, ‘read on’ something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it”); see also Pet. Reply 5–6 (arguing that there is no requirement that the prior 14 Later in its Response, Patent Owner argues that, although Campbell may “encrypt the name of th[e] bank,” Campbell does not “encrypt[] identification information that identifies a particular subsystem of the . . . Bank.” PO Resp. 48–49. Thus, Patent Owner appears to recognize that in fact Campbell discloses encrypting the name of the bank (while disputing that the name is sufficient to be a SSID). art mandate the use of a disclosed feature). Notwithstanding, we disagree that Campbell only occasionally encrypts SSIDs, for the reasons explained in the prior paragraph. Reviewing the record before us, we are persuaded that Campbell discloses transmitting an encrypted SSID.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “relay network over a telecommunications company network. Ex. 1002, 12:50–61. Patent Owner’s Declarant, Mr. Ginsberg, acknowledges that Campbell describes transmission of signals over a public switched telephone network, but states that “the ‘central offices’ are not described as being remote from the receiving bank.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 22. Mr. Ginsberg appears to be discussing the portion of Campbell where it describes the signals 16 “Wide Area Network (WAN)[:] A data communications network that covers geographically separated areas, typically containing cities. Thus a WAN is usually composed of Local Area Networks (LAN) interconnected by other communications links hired from a PTT or other common carrier.” Focal Dictionary of Telecommunications (1999) available at http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/bhfidt/wide_area_network_w an/0 (Ex. 3002). produced by the sending bank being transmitted on network access lines 22 to reach telephone network 10 and, more specifically, that “[t]he signals received by the network on line 22 may be transmitted through the network 10 via . . . one or more central offices to the check image processing node 12.” Ex. 1019, 3:17–43. Mr. Ginsberg does not explain how this passage supports his conclusion. Whether the “central offices” (not relied on by Petitioner for this claim) are remote to the sending bank has no bearing, which we can see, on whether Campbell describes a WAN. Campbell describes transmission of information between the sending bank and the node over a public switched telephone network; it is that communication that Petitioner asserts occurs over a WAN. See Pet. Reply 11–12; Pet. 30–31. A public switched telephone network covers geographically distinct locations. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that transmitting information over such a network generally involves the sender and receiver being in different locations; likewise, the system of Campbell makes little sense if the banks and the node are all in the same location.17 Accordingly, Mr. Ginsberg’s testimony on this point is unpersuasive. On the other hand, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Knox, explains how the Campbell system uses a public switched telephone network and a frame relay network, which Dr. Knox testifies is a type of WAN. Ex. 1003 ¶ 158. This testimony is persuasive, under its own reasoning and because, as” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,032,137 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,032,137
• Fiserv, Inc. v. Datatreasury CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2015 · CBM2014-00087 · APJ William V Saindon · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 16, 18, 22, 26, 29, 36, 38–42, 46–49, 58–60, 66–69, 73, 74, 80, 82–84, 88–91, 102, 106–110, and 114–123 are unpatentable as anticipated by Campbell; the remaining challenged claims were not shown …

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In our Decision to Institute this trial, we determined the broadest reasonable interpretation of “subsystem identification information” is “information that identifies a subsystem.” Dec. Inst. 8. There, as here, we relied on our prior interpretation of this term in the Jack Henry CBM. See Jack Henry CBM, Paper 17, 9–10; id., Paper 37, 9–12. Notably, we determined, as an ancillary matter to construing the term, that “nothing in the claims, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification, requires any form of ownership or other type of corporate relationship between the various subsystems; only that they function in the manner set forth in the claims.” Id., Paper 37, 12.5” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “B. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1062–1065. PO Mot. Excl. 2–3. Petitioner filed the disputed exhibits on April 7, 2015, which was more than two months after Petitioner filed its Reply and 22 days before oral hearing. Id. Petitioner characterizes its submission as “supplemental information” and “apologizes for its oversight” of the “minor procedural defect” of not seeking authorization to file a motion for supplemental information. Pet. Opp. Mot. Excl. 2. We dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude because we hereby order the expungement of Exhibits 1062–1065 for being filed without prior authorization.” slip op. at 9

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

    “With a full record, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position. Campbell does not state that only the image is encrypted. Instead, Campbell states that “information [is] encrypted . . . to provide security for the images transported.” Ex. 1019, 5:55–58 (emphasis added). Thus, Campbell uses the terms information and image to refer to different collections of data. Earlier in that column, Campbell also explains what it means by “information,” and it is clear that this information is not just images but rather includes “information [that] accompan[ies] those images.” Id. at 5:25–26 (emphasis added). For example, the information identifies the “sending institution,” “receiving institution,” and “the disposition of the check.” Id. at 5:26–31. As we discussed in a prior claim construction of this term, we are persuaded that information identifying the sending institution is a SSID. See Jack Henry CBM, Paper 37, 9–12. Thus, when this information is encrypted, it is an encrypted SSID, as required by claim 1. See also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–65, 78–84, 91 (Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Knox, testifying that the encrypted information in Campbell identifies the receiving institution).” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “bank and the node over a public switched telephone network; it is that communication that Petitioner asserts occurs over a WAN. See Pet. Reply 10; Pet. 21–22. A public switched telephone network covers geographically distinct locations. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that transmitting information over such a network generally involves the sender and receiver being in different locations; likewise, the system of Campbell makes little sense if the banks and the node are all in the same location. Accordingly, Mr. Ginsberg’s testimony on this point is unpersuasive. On the other hand, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Knox, explains how the Campbell system uses a public switched telephone network and a frame relay network, which Dr. Knox testifies is a type of WAN. Ex. 1003 ¶ 158. This testimony is persuasive, under its own reasoning and because, as we mentioned above, the WAN in the ’988 patent involves a frame relay network over a telecommunications company’s network.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 5,910,988 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 5,910,988
• Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 24, 2015 · IPR2014-00482 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13–15, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29–31, 33, 35, and 37 are unpatentable; claims 12 and 28 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We previously determined that, under a broad but reasonable construction, one of skill in the art would have understood the term “virtual private network communication link,” in light of the Specification, to include “a transmission path between two devices that restricts access to data, addresses, or other information on the path, generally using obfuscation methods to hide information on the path, including, but not limited to, one or more of authentication, encryption, or address hopping.” Dec. on Inst. 6–7. 1 Patent Owner disputes this interpretation and argues that the term “virtual private network communication link” must be “a communication path between computers in a virtual private network” (PO Resp. 8), “requir[es] computers within a VPN to communicate directly” (PO Resp. 10), and requires a “network of computers,” which, according to Patent Owner must be “more than a ‘path between two devices.’” PO Resp. 14. We decline to modify our previous construction of this term in the manner suggested by Patent Owner because such a modification is immaterial in this proceeding for reasons set forth below. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the case).” slip op. at 3

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

    “understood that a “secure computer network address” must be “associated with a computer capable of virtual private network communications” because a claim recites “sending an access request message to the secure computer network address using a virtual private network communication link.” PO Resp. 16. We agree with Patent Owner that claim 1, for example, recites “sending an access request message to the secure computer network address using a virtual private network communication link.” However, Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently why an explicitly recited claim limitation must be incorporated into the construction of an associated claim term. Indeed, if one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that all secure computer network addresses must be associated with a computer capable of VPN communications and that any computer network address that is associated with computers that are incapable of VPN communications would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art not to be a “secure computer network address” (even if authorization for access is required), then any such recited claim limitation would be superfluous. Patent Owner also argues that “VirnetX’s proposed construction has been agreed to by its litigation adversaries and has been adopted by a district court.” PO Resp. 17. Even if Patent Owner’s proposed construction “has been agreed to by” parties in litigation and the district court, Patent Owner does not assert or demonstrate persuasively that one of ordinary skill in the art would have broadly but reasonably construed the term “secure computer network address” in light of the Specification to require association with a computer capable of virtual private network communications. In any event, Patent Owner does not appear to contend that the cited references fail to disclose a secure computer network address that is associated with a computer capable of VPN communications and, therefore, does not demonstrate sufficiently that the construction of “secure computer network address” will bear on the outcome of the issues in this inter partes review. We decline to modify our construction of this term.” slip op. at 5

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

    “computer network address” of “the server-side proxy” (and not the “host”). PO Resp. 32 (emphasis omitted). In other words, Patent Owner argues that, in contrast to claim 1, which requires sending a query message requesting an address and receiving a response message containing the address requested in the query message, Kiuchi discloses sending a query message requesting an address of “the host” but receiving a response message containing an address of “the server-side proxy,” rather than “the host.” Based on this presumption that “the host” of Kiuchi differs from the “server-side proxy” of Kiuchi, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose the claimed invention and also that “the Board has exceeded its statutory authority by instituting in part on rationales that were not before it.” PO Resp. 30. However, Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently a difference between “the host” and the “server-side proxy” of Kiuchi. Kiuchi discloses that a client-side proxy “asks the C-HTTP name server whether it can communicate with the host” and that, in response, the C-HTTP name server examines “the requested server-side proxy” and responds by sending the IP address of the server-side proxy. Ex. 1004, 65 (emphasis added). In other words, Kiuchi discloses that “the host” that is requested is the requested “server-side proxy.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiuchi with the other references.” PO Resp. 3. Petitioner provides reasons with supporting factual underpinnings to support the conclusion that the combination of Kiuchi and Bhatti (and/or Tavs) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 34–35, 38–39. For example, Petitioner states that one of ordinary skill in the art would implement Kiuchi’s user agent such that the user agent sends an access request for content stored on the origin server, in the same manner that Bhatti describes sending an access request from a user terminal for content stored [on] a content server. Pet. 38. Petitioner also states that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the ’180 patent to modify the client-side proxy and server-side proxy described by Kiuchi to support the service-level categorization and differentiation described by Tavs in order to give priority to business-relevant traffic during peak network congestion.” Pet. 34. Patent Owner does not dispute the reasons provided by Petitioner as to why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined teachings of Kiuchi and Bhatti (and/or Tavs) but argues that this obviousness ground “is critically flawed because the Petition relies solely on missing expert testimony for its rationale for combining” the references. PO Resp. 54, 56. However, Patent Owner does not explain why Petitioner is required to provide expert testimony in support of a proposed ground of unpatentability. Nor does Patent Owner explain the supposed flaws in the rationale provided by Petitioner.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,188,180 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,188,180
• Apple Inc. v. Virnetx Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2015 · IPR2014-00404 · APJ Stephen C Siu · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 under § 102 and § 103; claim 5 under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingOther

    “seeking an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 of the ’274 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. On September 15, 2014, the Board instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 (IPR2014-00484) and joined IPR2014-00484 with IPR2014- 00404 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (IPR2014-00484, Paper 11 – Dec. on Inst.). On April 16, 2015, the present proceeding was terminated with respect to Microsoft Corporation only. Paper 38.” slip op. at 2

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

    “domain service” requesting a secure network address and receiving “a response message from the secure domain name service containing the secure network address.” Claim 1 does not recite “recogniz[ing] that the query message is requesting a secure computer address.” “[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms” and “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005). At least based on the context of the claim, we cannot agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “recogniz[ing]” is required by claim 1 in the absence of a recitation of this alleged requirement. Based on the context of the claim, the Specification, and the prosecution history, claim 1 does not require “recogniz[ing]” as argued by Patent Owner. The Specification describes an “SDNS 313” that “contains a cross-reference database of secure domain names and corresponding secure network addresses. That is, for each secure domain name, SDNS 3313 stores a computer network address corresponding to the secure domain name.” Ex. 1001, 47:15–18. This disclosure comes closest to aligning with the claim term, “secure domain service” (i.e., an SDNS as set forth in the disclosure). Patent Owner does not point the panel to a disclosure in the Specification that clearly supports the requirement of an SDNS to “recognize that the query message is requesting a secure computer address.” Hence, further based on the context of the Specification, we cannot agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “recogniz[ing]” is required by claim 1 in the absence of such a disclosure in the Specification of this alleged requirement.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term “tunnel packeting” to mean “forming a packet to be transmitted that contains data structured in one protocol format within the format of another protocol.” PO Resp. 19. However, Patent Owner does not demonstrate sufficiently that the construction of “tunnel packeting” will bear on the outcome of the issues in this inter partes review. Hence, we decline to modify our construction of this term.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Claim 1 recites sending a message from a first network device for an address for a second network device and, in response, receiving at the first network device the address for the second network device. Kiuchi discloses that a client-side proxy “asks the C-HTTP name server whether it can communicate with the host” and that, in response, the C-HTTP name server examines “the requested server-side proxy.” In response to the request from the client-side proxy, the client-side proxy (i.e., “first network device”) receives “the IP address and public key of the server-side proxy.” Ex. 1004, 65. In other words, Kiuchi discloses a first network device (or a client-side proxy) sending a message to the C-HTTP name server (or secure domain service) to request a secure network address (e.g., an “IP address and public key”) for a second network device (i.e., server-side proxy) and then, in response, receiving at the client-side proxy the requested secure network address for the second network device (i.e., “the IP address and public key of the server-side proxy”). Patent Owner does not demonstrate persuasively a difference between Kiuchi and the claimed invention. Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi discloses that the client-side proxy sends a request for a network address for the “origin server” but not for the server-side proxy. However, Kiuchi discloses that in response to the request to communicate with “the host,” the name server examines “the requested server-side proxy” and returns “the IP address . . . of the server-side proxy.” Ex. 1004, 65 (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, “the host” of Kiuchi corresponds to the “server-side proxy” (or second network device, as recited in claim 1).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,987,274 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,987,274

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.