• Juniper Networks, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00486 · APJ Kristi L R Sawert · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 31 and 33 are unpatentable under § 103; claim 34 is not shown unpatentable because the evidence and reasoning do not establish the associative cache limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field (or its equivalent), and one to two years of experience working in networking environments, including at least some experience with network traffic monitors and/or analyzers.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1056, 13–14; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 195–201). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art, which we determined was consistent with the ’789 patent and the asserted prior art. Inst. Dec. 26–27. In its Response, Patent Owner states that it “generally does not object to this finding.” PO Resp. 22. We apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as we did in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 26–27. We also maintain our determination that the definition offered by Petitioner is consistent with the teachings of the ’789 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 12

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

    “’099 patent as describing two seemingly disjointed packet exchanges involving two different clients or users (the first packet exchange between a client and the server and the second packet exchange between the client who has “inadvertently seen” the print service address and SAP #5) as belonging to the same “conversational flow.” And because Patent Owner’s proposed construction—that a “conversational flow” is client-specific—is inconsistent with the written description, we decline to limit a “conversational flow” to a specific client or user.” slip op. at 20

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

    “been motivated, based on Ferdinand’s teachings, to “modify Riddle’s monitor with an input buffer memory to temporarily store received packets and improve performance by limiting packet drops,” and that including such input buffer memory in a packet acquisition device in accordance with Riddle’s and Ferdinand’s teachings “amounts to nothing more than combining known prior-art technologies used in their ordinary and predictable manner to queue packet traffic.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 276). Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that “Riddle and Ferdinand are in the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping disclosures with similar purposes,” and “illustrate that it was well-known and ubiquitous in the art for networking devices to include database storage structures” such as buffers. Id. at 28–29 (citing Ex. 1009, 19:8–12, 20:22–22:12, 26:2–7, 28:14–17, Figs. 5, 7A–7C; Ex. 1006 ¶ 258). Patent Owner does not substantively address Petitioner’s contentions or otherwise argue that Riddle, either alone or in combination with Ferdinand, fails to disclose or suggest the input buffer memory limitation recited in claim 19. Accordingly, for the reasons detailed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Riddle and/or the combination of Riddle and Ferdinand teaches or suggests this subject matter, and that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art as Petitioner proposes. We therefore adopt the contentions set forth in the Petition and in Dr. Weissman’s Declaration as mapped to this undisputed limitation of claim 19 as our own findings. NuVasive, 841 F.3d at 974.” slip op. at 37

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 34 is unpatentable over the combination of Riddle, Ferdinand, and Wakeman. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner provides insufficient evidence to support its contentions. Indeed, the Petition’s discussion with respect to the “associative cache subsystem” limitation of claim 34 does not even cite Wakeman but instead cites only the testimony of Dr. Weissman and the specification of the ’789 patent. See Pet. 81.14 And neither Dr. Weissman’s 14 To be sure, the discussion of claim 34 in the Petition also includes an internal cross-reference to the “discuss[ion] for claim 33,” discussed at pages 79–80 of the Petition. Pet. 81. Although the discussion of that assertion that the artisan “would have understood that Wakeman’s CAM cache is fully associative due to Wakeman’s lack of a cache placement policy indicating there are no constraints on placement within Wakeman’s cache.” Id. We agree with Patent Owner that Dr. Weissman “does not explain why the absence of a cache placement policy in Wakeman would lead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] to just assume that Wakeman was teaching using of an associative cache placement policy.” PO Resp. 54. Thus, we determine that Dr. Weissman’s testimony in this regard is entitled to little, if any, weight. 37 CFR § 42.65(a). Moreover, as Patent Owner argues and we agree, Dr. Weissman’s statement that Wakeman could be modified to utilize an associative cache does not demonstrate that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement Wakeman’s cache as a fully associative cache. PO Resp. 54–55 (citing In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Although we agree with Petitioner that there is no indication that Wakeman disparages the use of an associative cache (Reply 28–29), there still needs to be “some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” (KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). We do not find such underpinning on the record before us. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 34 is unpatentable over Riddle in view of Ferdinand and further in view of Wakeman.” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 6,954,789 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,954,789
• Juniper Networks, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2021 · IPR2020-00337 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7, 16, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Riddle, Ferdinand, and Wakeman; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable because the associative-cache obviousness showing lacked sufficient evidence and reasoning.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art and, thus, begin with the level of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens through which . . . the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention” to prevent hindsight bias. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id. Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field (or its equivalent), and one to two years of experience working in networking environments, including at least some experience with network traffic monitors and/or analyzers.” Pet. 7–8 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 195–201). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art, which we determined was consistent with the ’646 patent and the asserted prior art. Inst. Dec. 25– 26. In its Response, Patent Owner states that it “generally does not object to this finding.” PO Resp. 22. art, as we did in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 25–26. We also maintain our determination that the definition offered by Petitioner is consistent with the teachings of the ’646 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 11

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

    “heart of the parties’ dispute (Ex. 1001, 2:37–45), we determine that the “for instance” phrase is exemplary and does not limit a “conversational flow” to a specific client or user. The phrase “for instance” is synonymous with “for example,” and necessarily indicates that “the running of an application on a server as requested by a client” exemplifies, but does not limit, the conversational flow to a server and a specific client or user. Our determination that the “for instance” phrase is exemplary and non-limiting is consistent with Patent Owner’s argument in its Preliminary Response that the “some” phrase (“some conversational flows involve more than one connection, and some even involve more than one exchange of packets between a client and server”) is non-limiting. Specifically, Patent Owner argued that the use of the word “some” necessarily means that “some conversational flows involve multiple connections, while, some involve a single connection.” Prelim. Resp. 24. Similarly here, while “conversational flow” certainly may involve the running of an application on a server as requested by a single client or user, “conversational flow” is not limited to a single client or user.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Riddle and Ferdinand renders obvious the recited flow-entry database limitations in view of the proper construction of “conversational flow.” See supra § III.C. Petitioner’s assertions, which we adopt, are supported by the cited evidence and are persuasive. Moreover, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Riddle and Ferdinand as proposed by Petitioner and supported by the testimony of Dr. Weissman. See Pet. 25–27 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 256–257, 259).” slip op. at 44

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

    “not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 3 is unpatentable over the combination of Riddle, Ferdinand, and Wakeman. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner provides insufficient evidence to support its contentions. Indeed, the Petition’s discussion with respect to claim 3 does not even cite Wakeman, but instead cites only the testimony of Dr. Weissman and the specification of the ’646 patent. See Pet. 75–76.12 And neither Dr. Weissman’s testimony nor the ’646 patent provides any persuasive support for Petitioner’s assertion that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that Wakeman’s CAM cache is fully associative due to Wakeman not disclosing a cache placement policy indicating there are no constraints on placement within Wakeman’s cache.” We agree with Patent Owner that “Dr. Weissman does not explain why the absence of a discussion of a cache placement policy in Wakeman would lead a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to just assume that Wakeman was teaching using of an associative cache placement policy,” and that his testimony in this regard is entitled to little, if any, weight. PO Resp. 58; 37 CFR § 42.65(a). As Patent Owner contends, Dr. Weissman’s statement that Wakeman could be modified to utilize an associative cache does not 12 To be sure, the discussion of claim 3 in the Petition also includes an internal cross-reference to the “discuss[ion] regarding element 1.3,” i.e., the “cache subsystem” limitation of claim 1, discussed at Pet. 57–59. Although the discussion of that limitation does include citations to Wakeman (see Pet. 58 (citing Ex. 1014, 1:20–28, 1:55–67, 2:31–49, 3:36–45, 4:31–40, 5:22–27, Figs. 2, 3)), however, notably absent from that discussion is any assertion that Wakeman specifically suggests an associative cache. motivated to implement Wakeman’s cache as a fully associative cache. Id. (citing In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Although we agree with Petitioner that there is no indication that Wakeman disparages the use of an associative cache (Reply 28–29), there still needs to be “some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” (KSR, 550 U.S. at 418), and we do not find such underpinning on the record before us. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 3 is unpatentable over Riddle in view of Ferdinand and further in view of Wakeman.” slip op. at 59

  Patent outcomesUS 6,771,646 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,771,646
• Renesas Electronics Corporation / Renesas Electronics America, Inc. v. Lone Star Silicon Innovations, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2019 · IPR2017-01869 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–6, 9, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious over Igarashi and Tanaka (1999); claims 2 and 7 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “For purposes of our Institution Decision, we accepted the definition of a POSA provided by Dr. Bottoms. Dec. 10–11 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 31). Dr. Bottoms provides a “clarification” of the Board’s description, testifying that “[t]he specific industry experience would require process design experience—which is experience beyond managing fabrication equipment.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 36. Dr. Bottoms’ clarification is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’330 patent, which discloses process design options for making a low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop. Ex. 1001, 5:66-6:24. Dr. Neikirk testifies that, under Dr. Bottoms’ definition, a POSA has a higher degree of skill than under Dr. Neikirk’s definition, and the Board’s adoption of Dr. Bottoms’ definition would not change his opinions regarding obviousness. Ex. 1028 ¶ 14. We find there is little difference between the declarants’ definitions of a POSA, and the outcome of our patentability determinations would be the same, regardless of which definition we accept. For the sake of clarity, we adopt Dr. Bottoms’ definition of a POSA, including the recent clarification. Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 35, 36. We also rely on the cited prior art references as reflecting the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedOther

    “After reviewing the qualifications of Dr. Neikirk and Dr. Bottoms, as set forth in each witness’s declaration and curriculum vitae, we find that each of these declarants has sufficient education and experience related to the subject matter of the ’330 patent to testify regarding the perspective of a POSA at the time of the invention. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 2, 3; Ex. 1012; Ex. 2002; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 8–20. See Trial Practice Guide Update, 83 Fed. Reg. 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018), available at https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP (“TPG Update”), 3 (“A person may not need to be a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to testify as an expert under Rule 702, but rather must be ‘qualified in the pertinent art.’” (quoting Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008))). D.” slip op. at 12

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we determined that it was not necessary to resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute. Dec. 9–10. Neither party challenges that determination. Petitioner contends that the asserted grounds of unpatentability apply under either party’s construction for the phrase “etch stop layer of silicon nitride.” Pet. 25 n.3. Patent Owner argues that this phrase is not limited to a layer of pure silicon nitride and allows for the presence of dopants and/or impurities. PO Resp. 8–10. Patent Owner does not, however, rely on its proposed claim construction for any patentability argument. In fact, Patent Owner acknowledges that the silicon nitride materials disclosed in the Low-K References satisfy Patent Owner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 10. Under these circumstances, we agree with Petitioner that we do not need to resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute. Pet. Reply 2. Accordingly, consistent with the Institution Decision, we determine that we do not need to provide an express construction for any claim term for purposes of resolving the controversy. 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))). B.” slip op. at 10

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

    “copper interconnects need silicon nitride films as an etch stop, but that such films have a high dielectric constant, which causes an undesirable increase in the effective dielectric constant of the interconnect structure and increased parasitic capacitance, as compared with aluminum interconnects. Ex. 1021, 829-1, 829-2; see Pet. 18; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 92, 93. As Petitioner correctly points out (Pet. 53–54), Tanaka (1999) cites Igarashi as an example of a copper interconnect system that is degraded by parasitic capacitance due to the high permittivity (dielectric constant) of silicon nitride etch stop films. Ex. 1017, 47-1 n.1. Tanaka (1999) discloses a low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop film as a solution to the problem of parasitic capacitance in copper damascene interconnect structures, such as Igarashi’s. Id. at 47-1, 47-2 (“New low-k SiN film, with a permittivity of 5.4 . . . should be the solution to realize Cu damascene interconnects . . . .”). Consistent with these express disclosures, Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies that “Igarashi identifies a need for a low-k dielectric etch stop layer” and “Tanaka (1999) meets this need.” Ex. 1011 ¶ 94; see Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1011, § VIII.C., which contains paragraph 94 of Dr. Neikirk’s testimony). Accordingly, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSA would have been motivated to use the low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop film of Tanaka (1999) as the etch stop layer in the interconnect system of Igarashi. Patent Owner disputes whether Petitioner has established a reasonable expectation of success for the combination of Tanaka (1999)’s low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop film and Igarashi’s interconnect structure. PO Resp. 65. Although the Petition does not expressly discuss whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Tanaka and Igarashi to arrive at the claimed invention, Petitioner shows a very close relationship between the teachings of Tanaka (1999) and Igarashi. Pet. 12–13, 17–18, 53–62. As discussed above and argued by Petitioner, Tanaka (1999): (1) cites Igarashi as an example of a copper interconnect system that suffers from parasitic capacitance due to the high dielectric constant of silicon nitride etch stop films, and (2) discloses a low dielectric constant silicon nitride etch stop film as a solution to the parasitic capacitance problem exemplified by Igarashi. Pet. 13, 18, 53–54; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 74–79, 88–94; Ex. 1017, 47-1 & n.1; Ex. 1021, 829-1, 829-2. Petitioner establishes a reasonable expectation of success for the combination of Tanaka (1999) and Igarashi by demonstrating a strong correlation between the problem discussed by Igarashi—the high dielectric constant of silicon nitride films when used as etch stops for copper interconnects—and the solution disclosed by Tanaka (1999)—a low dielectric constant silicon nitride film for use as an etch stop layer in copper damascene interconnect structures. In re Inland Steel Co., 265 F.3d 1354, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he strength of the correlation between the references gives rise to a reasonable expectation of success from combining them.”).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,388,330 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,388,330
• Facebook, Inc. / Whatsapp Inc. et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2019 · IPR2017-01667 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3, 6–8, 10–35, 38, and 39 are unpatentable; claims 4 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeOther

    “Response in each case. IPR2017-01667, Paper 17 (“1667 PO Resp.”); IPR2017-01668, Paper 16 (“1668 PO Resp.”). Petitioner4 then filed Replies. IPR2017-01667, Paper 24 (“1667 Reply”); IPR2017-01668, Paper 22 (“1668 Reply”). Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Exclude as Paper 21 in each case (“Mot. Excl.”), and Petitioner filed an Opposition as Paper 24 in each case (“Opp’n”). We held a consolidated oral argument in both proceedings, as well as in related proceeding IPR2017-01428, on August 30, 2018. A transcript of the oral hearing (“Tr.”) has been entered into the record of IPR2017-01667 as Paper 31 and into the record of IPR2017-01668 as Paper 29.” slip op. at 3

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

    “01668, Paper 6 (“1668 Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted inter partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314 as to all challenged claims. IPR2017-01667, Paper 8 (“1667 Dec. on Inst.”); IPR2017-01668, Paper 8 (“1668 Dec. on Inst.”). During the pendency of the proceedings, Huawei Device Co., Ltd. and LG Electronics, Inc. filed a petition and motion for joinder requesting to join IPR2017-01667, which we granted. IPR2017-01667, Paper 12. Similarly, Apple Inc. filed petitions and motions for joinder requesting to join IPR2017-01667 and IPR2017-01668, which we also granted. IPR2017- 01667, Paper 29; IPR2017-01668, Paper 27.” slip op. at 3

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

    “1. Instant Voice Message Independent challenged claims 3, 27, and 38 recite the term “instant voice message.” In particular, claim 3 recites a messaging system that “receives an instant voice message” from one of a plurality of instant voice the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42). message client systems, “wherein the instant voice message includes an object field including a digitized audio file.” Claims 27 and 38 recite a client platform system for “generating an instant voice message and a messaging system for transmitting the instant voice message.” Claim 27 further requires an “instant voice messaging application” that “includes a document handler system for attaching one or more files to the instant voice message.” Certain of the challenged dependent claims recite additional limitations concerning, for example, additional fields included in the instant voice message (claims 4–8), storage, deletion, or retrieval of instant voice messages (claims 10, 14, 17, 28, 31), the generation of the instant voice messages (claims 13, 18, 32), encryption/decryption of instant voice messages (claims 19, 33), compression/decompression of instant voice messages (claims 20, 34), effects indicating receipt of instant voice messages (claims 23, 35), and display of instant voice messages (claim 30). Our Institution Decision in IPR2017-01667 noted Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the “instant voice message” centered on the scope of the term. 1667 Dec. on Inst. 18, 22–23. Patent Owner had argued an implied construction in which “instant voice message” encompasses only the voice message. Id. at 19, 23. The parties were invited to brief the claim construction during trial. Id. at 19–20, 23. In its Response in IPR2017-01667, Patent Owner proposed that an “instant voice message” is “an audio file recording voice data.” 1667 PO Resp. 11–13, 15. In particular, Patent Owner relied on the specification’s use of “i.e.” to indicate lexicography in equating the “instant voice message”” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,724,622 mixed
  Claim constructioncites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,724,622
• Fujifilm Corporation v. Sony CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2018 · IPR2017-01268 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15 and 17 are unpatentable as anticipated by Ishikawa; the petitioner did not show claims 1–11, 16, and 18–20 unpatentable over Aonuma or Aonuma and Abe.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(“POSITA”) at the time of the ’774 patent would have had “a bachelor’s degree in materials science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry, or a closely related field, and at least five years of experience” in industry or academic research relating to magnetic tape, or “a master’s degree or higher” in the same fields and at least three years of experience relating to magnetic tape. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 65; Ex. 1018 ¶ 60). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assessment in its Response, and Dr. Talke agrees that it “is reasonable.” Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 25–26. Petitioner’s assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we 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)). For the purposes of the Decision on Institution, we determined that, based on the record at that time, no claim term required express construction (Dec. on Inst. 7), and we see no reason to modify that determination in light of the record developed during trial. C.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedMixed

    “considerably greater than Ishikawa’s stylus load of 50–300 μN (Ex. 1015 ¶ 45). The Talke Declaration does not address this discrepancy, and Dr. Talke stated during his deposition that reducing the stylus load would reduce scratching of the magnetic tape surface. Ex. 1030, 108:14–19 (“Q: Would reducing the contact pressure for the stylus instrument reduce the scratching of the magnetic tape surface by the stylus? A: Yes, it would, but you have to remember the other problem is the diameter and size of the stylus.”). Moreover, Petitioner provides evidence that it was not uncommon to use stylus-type profilometers to measure the properties of magnetic tape, even after Bhushan was published in 1996. See Reply 6. In particular, Petitioner points to Saliba,6 which describes using a stylus-type profilometer, under identical conditions to those used in Ishikawa, to measure the surface characteristics (including peak-to-valley roughness) of the backcoating of magnetic tape. Ex. 1027, 7:28–40, 57–60. Petitioner further points to Ohno,7 which also describes using “a stylus type 3D profilometer in accordance with JIS B0601” to measure the surface roughness characteristics of magnetic tape. Ex. 1028 ¶ 36; see also Ex. 1015 ¶ 45 (Ishikawa explaining that surface roughness characteristics were measured “in accordance with JIS-B0601-1994”); Ex. 1027, 7:28–39 (Saliba explaining that surface roughness characteristics where measured “in accordance with JIS-B0601-1994”). Accordingly, we are persuaded that the 6 US Patent No. 6,558,774 B1, issued May 6, 2003 (Ex. 1027). 7 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2005/0175866 A1, published Aug. 11, 2005 (Ex. 1028). evidence establishes that a stylus-type profilometer is a suitable device for measuring the surface characteristics of magnetic tape.” slip op. at 19

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Ishikawa teaches “peak-to-valley roughness less than about 325 nm” as recited in claim 15. Pet. 24–25; Reply 5–8; Ex. 1003 ¶ 216. In particular, Ishikawa teaches a backcoating layer of a magnetic tape that has a peak-to-valley roughness “Rz of 40 to 250 nm, particularly 50 to 200 nm.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 44. Ishikawa provides five example embodiments of its magnetic tape, and reports the measurements of a number of characteristics of the backcoat layer for each example, including peak-to-valley roughness Rz. Id. ¶¶ 120–134, Table 1. Ishikawa discloses that peak-to-valley roughness Rz was measured using a stylus-type profilometer under the following conditions: Stylus: diameter: 1.5 to 2.5 μm; curvature: 60º Contact pressure: 50 to 300 μN Cut-off length: 80 μm Sampling length: 80 μm Assessment length: 400 μm Id. ¶¶ 45, 49. The reported peak-to-valley roughness Rz values for the five examples ranged from 58 to 87 nm, as shown in the annotated portion of Ishikawa Table 1 from the Petition, reproduced below: Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1015, Table 1). The annotated portion of Ishikawa Table 1 shows the results for the measured characteristics of the backcoat layer of Examples 1–5, with the peak-to-valley roughness Rz values highlighted by a red box. Id. Because Ishikawa teaches that the backcoating layer of its magnetic tape should have a peak-to-valley roughness “Rz of 40 to 250 nm, particularly 50 to 200 nm,” and because Ishikawa presents examples of magnetic tape with backside surfaces having a peak-to-valley roughness of 87 nm or less, Ishikawa discloses “a peak-to-valley roughness less than about 325 nm” as recited in claim 15.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,029,774 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,029,774
• Dexcom, Inc. v. Waveform Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2018 · IPR2017-01051 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–12, and 15–19 were held unpatentable as obvious over Hagiwara; claims 2, 3, 13, and 14 were not shown unpatentable. The motion to amend was granted in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “j. Conclusion Regarding Obviousness Based on Hagiwara (Proposed Substitute Claims) We conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 20, 22, 23, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara. We conclude that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 21, 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara. 2. Remaining Grounds of Unpatentability Asserted by Petitioner (Proposed Substitute Claims) In view of our determination that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 20, 22, 23, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Hagiwara, we do not reach Petitioner’s remaining grounds of unpatentability as to these claims. Regarding proposed substitute claims 24 and 25, Petitioner’s contentions regarding the Handbook, Wilson, and Say do not remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s contentions regarding Hagiwara, as discussed above. Accordingly, we conclude that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that proposed substitute claims 24 and 25 are unpatentable as obvious based on Hagiwara in view of the Handbook, Wilson, or Say. H.” slip op. at 71

  • ExcludeOther

    “As discussed above, we do not reach the Wilson-Based Grounds with respect to claims 1, 4–12, and 15–19 of the ’574 patent. As for claims 2, 3, 13, and 14, we determine that Petitioner has not shown unpatentability based on the Wilson-Based Grounds, even if Exhibit 1037 and the corresponding portions of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 37) are not excluded, because Petitioner does not offer Exhibit 1037 to cure the deficiency we noted in Wilson. See Section II.F, supra. For this reason, we dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s motion.” slip op. at 72

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “sensor would not have been a motivation to combine Hagiwara’s embodiments” because Hagiwara’s catheter prevents damage to the sensor during insertion and because a sensor with a side sensor window creates a greater risk of damage and vascular injury and reduces exposure to blood, as compared with a sensor with an end sensor window. PO Resp. 20–25. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments, but, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established a motivation to combine, notwithstanding the conflicting expert testimony regarding the disadvantages of a side sensor window versus an end sensor window. Neither of the expert opinions on this topic is supported by objective facts or data. Ex. 1006 ¶ 155;13 Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 54–57, 87–95; Ex. 2009, 92:8–97:12. For this reason, we give little or no weight to either side’s expert testimony 13 Dr. Vachon cites “WO 01/13102, Vadgama” (Ex. 1006 ¶ 155), however, this reference was not submitted as an exhibit in this proceeding. on this topic. 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.”); Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (nothing in the Federal Rules of Evidence or Federal Circuit jurisprudence requires the fact finder to credit unsupported assertions of an expert witness). As discussed above, however, there is no disagreement that a side sensor window was a known alternative to an end sensor window. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 73, 155; Tr. 43:22–44:3. That undisputed fact, together with Petitioner’s other evidence, is sufficient to establish a motivation to combine.” slip op. at 42

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art For purposes of our Institution Decision, we accepted the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) provided by Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Vachon. Dec. 11 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 28). That definition is: a person having a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent training or experience in mechanical engineering, bioengineering, or related field and at least three years of experience relating to biosensor research and development, or a master’s degree or the equivalent training or experience in mechanical engineering, bioengineering, or related field, and at least one year of experience relating to biosensor research and development. Id. Patent (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/guidance_on_motions_ to_amend_11_2017.pdf); Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Iancu, Order on Petition for Panel Rehearing, No. 2015-1928 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2018). Owner’s declarant accepts and applies this definition of a POSITA for purposes of his opinions. Ex. 2008 ¶ 30. Neither party’s declarant indicates that any proffered opinion would change depending on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, consistent with our Institution Decision, we adopt Dr. Vachon’s definition of a POSITA. Ex. 1006 ¶ 28. We also rely on the cited prior art references as reflecting the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 7,529,574 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,529,574
• Apple Inc. / Facebook, Inc. et al. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2018 · IPR2017-00222 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Vuori and Vuori with Malik; claims 3–8 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art focuses too generally on experience in “communications technology.” The enunciation of such experience is too generic to be useful in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art under any of the GPAC factors. For instance, experience with “communications technology” is untethered to addressing problems and solutions in facilitating short messaging services, such as in Vuori, or to whether active workers in the appropriate field would manifest such a general experience in “communications technology.” Vuori, for instance, focuses on facilitating short messaging service in the context of a wireless telecommunication network. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 57. Therefore, we cannot ignore that the field of work would be more narrow than generally “communications technology.” We find that Petitioner’s assessment is proper and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For example, Vuori (Ex. 1005) and Malik (Ex. 1019) address instant messaging systems in the context of telecommunication and computer networks, such as a Global System for Mobile Communications (“GSM”), General Packet Radio Service (“GPRS”), Universal Mobile Telecommunication Systems (“UMTS”), and the Internet. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3539, Figs. 3, 6; Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 4, 7; see also Ex. 1021, 1:2544 (addressing audio conferences across networks using the Internet Protocol and VoIP). Thus, it is evident from the prior art that Petitioner’s assessment is appropriate because, in addition to a certain degree, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience in communications systems, particularly in messaging systems, data networks including VoIP and mobile telephony, or comparable industry experience. Consequently, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 35, 43, 47; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125126; Reply 511; Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 1625). In particular, we note that the Petition relies on the Forys Declaration to explain that Vuori’s presence information is distributed to other users connected to the network. Pet. 14 (Ex. 1003 ¶ 125). The Easttom Declaration, in contrast, explains that SVM watcher 256 is not a user-facing “client” and “thus does not render obvious the claimed ‘transmitting’ step.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 29. Dr. Forys agreed during cross-examination that SVM watcher 256 (which receives the presence information from the presence service) is not a user device. Ex. 2002, 67:270:22 (line of questioning regarding whether SVM watcher 256 is a user agent). However, in his supplemental declaration, submitted after his deposition, Dr. Forys further explained that SVM watcher 256, although not a user device or user agent, is “user-facing” because there is “coupling” between the SVM watcher and the user agent. Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 16, 20. According to Dr. Forys, the presence status must be distributed to a user agent because Vuori teaches that the status markers of the presence information are “interpretable by programs or by persons and can consist of single or multiple values as spelled out in the IETF model of RFC 2778.” Id. ¶ 21 (referring to Ex. 1005 ¶ 47 (emphasis added)). That is, we understand Dr. Forys’s testimony as explaining that the presence information, although distributed to SVM watcher 256, eventually is also transmitted to SVM watcher UA (“user agent”) 278, because the user/principal must be able to interpret the status of his/her buddy list members. Moreover, Dr. Forys relies on RFC 2778, as described in Vuori (Ex. 1005 ¶ 47), which supports his testimony by stating that the “buddy list” application makes it possible for a user to see the presence of others, resulting in the “buddy list” as the combination of the presence user agent and watcher user agent. Ex. 1028 ¶ 21; Ex. 1005 ¶ 47; Ex. 1025 § 2.7 (providing examples of the disclosed model in a buddy list application). On balance, weighing the expert testimony proffered by the parties, we credit Dr. Forys’s testimony as being more consistent with and supported by Vuori’s teachings. For instance, we agree with Dr. Forys that the user agent is coupled to other system services. See Ex. 1028 ¶ 16 (relying on Ex. 1005 ¶ 46 (“A user agent is purely coupling between a principal and some core entity of the system (SVM inbox 274, SVM sender 272, SVM presentity 254, SVM watcher 256).”)). Vuori teaches that implementation of a user agent will combine at least some of the different kinds of user agents. Ex. 1005 ¶ 46. Thus, we agree, as argued by Petitioner, that a user agent with presence information capability interacts with the presence service via SVM watcher 256 to fetch some presence information and be notified of changes of status marker information from members of the buddy list. Considering Vuori’s explanation of status marker information being interpretable by a principal, we agree with Dr. Forys’s testimony that the user agent will receive the presence information that contains these status markers. Thus, if the user agent receives the presence information via its coupling with SVM watcher 256, we find that presence information 290, distributed on the line 252, (i.e., the “list”) has been shown to be transmitted to the user agent (i.e., the “client”).” slip op. at 35

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

    “We resolve this close issue by noting that a claim construction that excludes the “single entry” from the claim scope is preferable, because otherwise, the word “each” would be meaningless in instances where the list contained only one entry.3 See Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”); see also Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950–51 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 3 If the “sub-set of the nodes” were a single node, then the word “each” in the phrase “each of the nodes in the sub-set corresponding to the client” would also be superfluous in the circumstances where there was a single node. The term “each” still has meaning in the circumstances where there is more than one. (refusing to construe claim terms in a way that made other claim limitations meaningless). Accordingly, guided by case law governing claim construction, we adopt a construction of the term “list,” as used in claim 1, that requires more than one node in the “sub-set” corresponding to the client.” slip op. at 15

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

    “During the preliminary stage of the proceeding, Petitioner proposed a claim construction for the term “intercom mode.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner argued that construction of this term was unnecessary, and we agreed with Patent Owner. See Prelim. Resp. 18; Dec. 7. Neither party proposed explicit construction of any other term. It became clear, however, that the scope of the word “list” was at issue, when Patent Owner argued that the “list of the recorded connectivity status” must include the connectivity status of more than one node. Prelim. Resp. 2728. In our Decision on Institution, we disagreed with Patent Owner’s contention regarding the scope of the word “list,” and noted that the Specification seemed to contradict Patent Owner’s position on claim scope. Dec. 1718 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:6164). We invited the parties to provide, during trial, claim construction analysis concerning this dispute.” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 8,243,723 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,243,723
• Alere Inc. v. Rembrandt Diagnostics, LPSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2018 · IPR2016-01502 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 2 is unpatentable as anticipated by MacKay; claims 3–5 were not shown unpatentable over MacKay and Cipkowski.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mkt’g Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett–Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For example, a preamble may be limiting when the disputed preamble phrase provides antecedent basis for a claim term in the body of a claim, the specification underscores that the additional structure recited in the preamble is important, or when the patentee clearly relied upon the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Id. at 808–09. “Conversely, a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention,’” id. at 808, or where the patentee uses the preamble to give “a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim,” IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The phrase ‘control apparatus’ in the preamble merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely set forth the invention.”). The term “device” is not recited in the body of any claim of the ’019 patent,4 the body of claim 1 recites a structurally complete invention, and the preamble phrase “device for collecting and assaying a sample of biological fluid” specifies the intended use of the invention. Thus, we find the claims of the ’019 patent do not support construing “device” as a limitation. See Catalina Mkt’g, 289 F.3d at 808–09.” slip op. at 8

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

    “device” set forth above requires a single, unitary structure rather than a collection of separate structures that could be used during the test. See id. at 18 (concluding without analysis that the dictionary definition requires a “single, unitary structure”). Indeed, despite the ubiquitous use of the term “device” in patents generally, we are directed to no case in which the term “device,” by itself, was found to require a single, unitary structure. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Section 2106, I (identifying “devices” as one of the four categories of statutory subject matter); Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, 712 F.3d 549, 565 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (O’Malley concurring in part) (confirming that, in general, the term “device” is generic). Thus, we are not persuaded that the ordinary meaning of the term “device” requires a “single, unitary structure.” See Ex. 1023 ¶ 66 (Dr. Bohannon testifying that the word device, like the words “apparatus” or “system,” is merely a generic term that does not have a specialized meaning in the art and does not require a single, unitary structure). slip op. at 12

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

    “We do not find this argument persuasive. As noted above, we do not construe claim 1 to contain a method step of adding fluid to the container. We construe the first wherein clause of claim 1(c), instead, to require a structure that is capable of allowing liquid to enter the container when the flow control channel is properly disposed therein and is capable of directing this liquid to the sample loading zone of the assay test strip without the liquid having to migrate through an intermediate structure, such as a wicking material. We are persuaded—and Patent Owner does not dispute—that the apparatus of MacKay, as disclosed in Figures 8A–C, has a structure that is capable of achieving both functions. See, e.g., Tr. 26:10–30:20. First, given the open nature of the container, it is evident that liquid may be added to the container when the flow control channel is disposed within the container, and Patent Owner does not assert otherwise. See, e.g., id. Second, even if the fluid present in Figures 8A–C is considered, there is no intermediate structure in the container of MacKay that would prevent additional assay sample fluid from entering the container and being immediately directed to the sample loading zone of the assay test strips.6 Based on the foregoing, we find that MacKay discloses every limitation of claims 1 and 2 of the ’019 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 is anticipated by MacKay.” slip op. at 21

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

    “discloses the subject matter of claims 3–5 of the ’019 patent. Pet. 26–30. Petitioner also asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to insert the test trip and flow control channel of MacKay in the holder of Cipkowski, in order to prevent “flooding of the test strip as taught in MacKay.” Id. at 29.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 6,548,019 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,548,019
• Alarm.Com Inc. v. Vivint, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 10, 2017 · IPR2016-00161 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

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

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

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 6,535,123 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,535,123

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.