• Apple Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2022 · IPR2021-01130 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2, 13, 19, 23, 24, 27, 29–31, 46, and 48–50 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 40–42 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts the level of skill adopted in the Final Written Decision in IPR2019-01568, Google ’837 IPR at 8–9. See Pet 5 n.3;4 Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37. Our prior decision in IPR2019-01568 found that A [person of ordinary skill in the art] has an accredited bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related discipline that included coverage of wireless communications and the use of communication protocols used for real-time communications, and also at least two years of industry experience. In lieu of specific academic training, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] may draw upon appropriate industry experience to meet the foregoing requirements. Google ’837 IPR at 8. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s statement. See PO Resp. We apply this level of skill in the present case.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We now consider claim construction issues only to the extent necessary to dispose of the instant unpatentability grounds. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Petitioner offers no proposed claim constructions and applies the constructions determined by the Board in the IPR2019-01568 Final Written Decision. Pet. 3. Petitioner asserts that the remaining terms are given their “ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date . . . and the patent’s prosecution history.” Id. at 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–74; 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b)). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s construction. PO Resp. 10–11. We adopt the claim constructions determinations in IPR2019-01568 provided in the table below. Claim Term IPR2019-01568 Construction “generating textual characters and “graphical symbols” refers to graphical symbols in response to “graphical emoticons;” phrase is manipulation of keys on a data given its “ordinary meaning in the entry device”” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

  Patent outcomesUS 7,894,837 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 7,894,837
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · IPR2021-00856 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable over the asserted §103 grounds; claims 17–23 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “persuasive and credit Dr. Kang’s testimony that Freedman’s ablating laser is incompatible with laser surgery on the lens or lens capsule during cataract surgery. Ex. 2087 ¶¶ 49–51, 79–82. This is because the ablating laser cannot pass through the cornea to reach the lens without destroying the cornea in the process. Id. ¶¶ 79, 82. In contrast, lasers used to cut internal tissues of the eye use laser photodisruption. Id. ¶ 80. Accordingly, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have used Freedman’s system to perform surgery on the lens or lens capsule, as asserted by Petitioner.” slip op. at 76

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

    “exhibit provides no context or rationale for the award and, as discussed above, the Catalys product is composed of many components and systems not specifically covered by the challenged claims. Ex. 2043, 3. Patent Owner points also to a report dated June 28, 2012, as evidencing that this award was for the specific features of the Catalys product claimed, but this evidence lacks any identification of the author and the portion identifying features of the product appears to merely be listing features thereof rather identifying than any reason for the award. Ex. 2040. Additionally, the evidence of praise cited by Patent Owner is not specific to the subject matter of claim 1 (and its dependent claims) of the ’724 patent, but general praise for the FLACS system and laser-guided femtosecond laser procedures. See Ex. 2035; Ex. 2037; Ex. 2044; Ex. 2051. For these reasons, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments or evidence on industry praise.” slip op. at 51

  Patent outcomesUS 8,500,724 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,500,724
• 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
• Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies OYSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 4, 2020 · IPR2019-00823 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5–8, and 10 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 4, 9, and 11 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’494 patent as one who would have had “a Bachelor’s (B.S.) degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2–5 years of academic or industry experience in the field of Internet security.” Dec. on Inst. 7–8 (citing Pet. 17; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner does not dispute our adoption of Petitioner’s definition, nor otherwise address the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention of the ’494 patent. See generally PO Resp.; see also Ex. 2002 ¶ 22. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’494 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We apply Petitioner’s definition in our analysis below. IV.” slip op. at 8

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

    “A. Unique Identity In the Petition, Petitioner argues that “unique identity” means “one or more parameters that uniquely identify a secure connection.” Pet. 18. In our Decision on Institution, “we concluded that no express claim construction of the term ‘unique identity’ [wa]s necessary” because in its Preliminary Response “Patent Owner d[id] not argue that RFC3104 or Grabelsky fails to disclose this term and, therefore, this term is not in controversy.” Dec. on Inst. 9 (citations omitted). In the subsequent papers, the parties confirm “that there is no reason to construe this term” because “Patent Owner does not dispute that some form of a unique identity is found in the primary reference.” PO Resp. 20; see also Pet. Reply 8 (agreeing that this term need not be construed). Accordingly, we find that no express construction of “unique identity” is needed. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Specification support its proposed construction for this term. First, we find that Patent Owner conflates “mobility” with “mobile computer.”5 The Specification states that “the term mobility . . . meant moving from one network to another,” rather than the term “mobile computer” having this meaning. Ex. 1001, 4:34–38 (emphasis added). Moreover, the Specification uses the term “mobility” as a capability or condition. For example, the Specification uses the term “mobility” as follows: (i) certain “protocols are not well suited to mobility”; (ii) “[t]he intermediate host might be a Mobile IP home agent, that provides mobility for the connection between the mobile terminal and the home agent . . . .”; (iii) a disclosed “method solves the mobility problem, at the cost of adding extra headers to packets”; and (iv) “[o]ne example of a change in the [security association (‘SA’)] between the first computer and the intermediate computer is the change of addresses for enabling mobility.” Ex. 1001, 5:7–8, 5:17–21, 5:33–34, 7:56–58 (emphases added). In other words, mobility is a capability a mobile computer has, rather than being synonymous with mobile computer. As such, these passages from the Specification support Petitioner’s construction” slip op. at 17

  • Strike new argumentNot reached

    “Lastly,12 we find that Patent Owner’s remaining arguments for this limitation are premised on either its (i) proposed construction (i.e., a mobile computer is “a computer that moves from one network to another as opposed to a computer that is only capable of a static secure connection”), which we do not adopt; or (ii) inapposite argument that the mobile computer needs to 12 We need not, and thus do not, reach whether Petitioner’s arguments for this limitation in its Reply (Pet. Reply 8–14) are new arguments, as Patent Owner argues in its Sur-Reply (PO Sur-Reply 13–24), because we do not rely on them, but instead, we rely on Petitioner’s arguments, and citations to the record evidence, from the Petition. maintain the same secure connection. See PO Resp. 25–51. Thus, we find these arguments unavailing. Likewise, Dr. Borella’s declaration testimony is not helpful to our analysis as his “declaration employs the assumption that the ‘mobile computer’ recited in the claims moves from one network to another,” which is contrary to our construction, as we discuss above. Ex. 2010 ¶ 42; supra Section IV(B) (construing mobile computer).” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 9,712,494 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,712,494
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Old Republic General Insurance Group, Inc. / Old Republic Insurance Company et al. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 12, 2017 · IPR2015-01992 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–12, 14–24, and 34–48 are unpatentable over the stated grounds; claims 3 and 13 were not shown unpatentable, and claims 25–33 and 49 were disclaimed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “On February 8, 2017, Patent Owner informed the Board that it had “disclaimed claims 25–33 and 49” of the ’002 patent, thereby “rendering the institution of claims 25–33 and 49 in the subject inter partes review proceeding moot.” Paper 18, 1; Ex. 2005 (disclaimer of claims 25–33 and 49 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a)).” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenMixed

    “2. Analysis To anticipate a claim a “prior art reference must disclose each and every feature of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., 471 F.3d 1369, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An inherent disclosure may be found when an asserted prior art reference “necessarily” includes the unstated limitation. Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc., 290 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Upon review of Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner has identified where each limitation of independent claim 1 is disclosed in Huang. Claims 11, 34, and 40 contain limitations similar to claim 1, Petitioner provides detailed arguments as to where each limitation of these claims is disclosed in Huang, and Patent Owner does not present any arguments for these claims separate from those 7 At oral argument, Patent Owner asserted that we should not consider Petitioner’s argument that the icons of Huang contain URL information because this argument was presented for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply. Tr. 32:19–35:5. Patent Owner did not file a motion to exclude this evidence, however, or request a sur-reply to address any allegedly new issues raised for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply. Id. at 34:18–23. Nor is it evident why Petitioner’s arguments are not appropriate rebuttal arguments addressing Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “pointer.” Accordingly, we decline to exclude Petitioner’s URL arguments and evidence.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “be used in conjunction with the mobile interface agent, including “a computer, cable set top box, cellular phone, or other device.” Ex. 1001, 4:44–45. Patent Owner does not explain why the description of a “pointer” in one “context,” i.e., on a computer or PDA, represents a clear and deliberate attempt to define the term in all contexts, such that all pointers must be a “reference” to “a type of menu item” and be “accessible on a computer, PDA, or server.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (noting that an inventor is “free to define the specific terms used to describe his or her invention,” but “this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision”). The broadest definition of the term “pointer” in the ’002 patent is “a link/shortcut to an item.” Ex. 1001, 10:8–10 (“As discussed above, a pointer is a link/shortcut to an item such as . . . .”); Dec. on Inst. 10. This definition is consistent with the description of “pointers” in the ’002 patent written description and claims. Ex. 1001, 20:4–6 (“wherein the pointers provide links to access the corresponding user specific resources and information.”). Accordingly, we construe “pointer” to mean “a link or shortcut to an item.”” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 6,546,002 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,546,002

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.