- Unified Patents Inc. v. KCG Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 10, 2021 · IPR2019-01536 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious; the revised motion to amend is denied because proposed substitute claims 14–26 are unpatentable as obvious or indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“We agree with Petitioner. Proposed substitute claim 24 recites “the handheld device” without antecedent basis. This lack of antecedent basis renders proposed substitute claim 24 indefinite, as we noted in our Preliminary Guidance. Pet. Opp. to RMTA 25; Prelim. Guidance 8 (“Proposed substitute claim 24 also recites ‘the handheld device’ and also suffers from the lack of antecedent basis). Despite having the opportunity to correct its error and amend proposed substitute dependent claim 24 when independent claim 14 was amended to remove the recitation of “a handheld device,” Patent Owner did not do so in its Contingent Revised Motion to Amend. RMTA 31. Proposed substitute claim 24 is indefinite because the claim “fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); see USPTO Memorandum on the Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021)13; see MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020). This is because “the handheld device” is only recited in proposed substitute claim 24, and the proposed substitute claim fails to inform one skilled in the art the scope of invention related to synchronizing “data on the handheld device” “in the virtual smart phone.” Because proposed substitute claims 25 and 26 depend from proposed substitute claim 24, we similarly agree with Petitioner that claims 25 and 26 also are indefinite for lacking an antecedent basis for the term “handheld device.” Pet. Opp. to RMTA 25. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 24–26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite.” slip op. at 40
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Whether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Absent clear reliance on the preamble in the prosecution history, or in situations where it is necessary to provide antecedent basis for the body of the claim, the preamble generally is not limiting.” Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assoc. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). When the limitations in the body of the claim rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble, then the preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention and is limiting. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A claim preamble also is limiting if the preamble is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 182 F.3d at 1305. We disagree with Patent Owner. Specifically, we do not agree that limitations in the body of the claims require the preamble to serve as an antecedent basis nor do they derive essential structure from the preamble. Rather, all of the elements recited in the body of claim 1 comprise a “virtual smart phone.” That is, we do not discern, and Patent Owner fails to persuasively point us to, any structure imparted by the preamble’s recitation of a “virtual smart phone.” See Pet. Reply 1–2. We similarly do not agree that the without the term “virtual smart phone” there would be no understanding of the “emulating” or “handheld device” limitations. Rather, the recited “software application executing on the processor” limitation provides the structure and meaning for the “emulating” of the “handheld device” features. Furthermore, we agree with the Petitioner that there is no evidence in the record that the prosecution history requires that the preamble is limiting, and the claims were distinguished during prosecution based on the recitation of a “virtual” smart phone. Id. at 2–3. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting. slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“on the process to . . . emulate features of a handheld device.” Ex. 1001, 12:58–60 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the term “‘emulate’ has a meaning in the art that is common and understood to mean ‘to imitate.’” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner provides a dictionary definition to support its contention. Ex. 2004 (defining “emulate” as “to imitate in an effort to equal or surpass”). Patent Owner contends the use of “emulate” in claim 1 comports with its commonly understood meaning as “to imitate,” as does the use of the term “emulate” in the written description. Pet. 18–20 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:3, 2:6–3:5, 12:54–13:2 (claim 1)). Petitioner argues that the term “emulate” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and does not contest Patent Owner’s construction of the term “emulate” as “to imitate.” Pet. 6–7; Pet. Reply 7. Petitioner, however, contests Patent Owner’s application of that construction to the asserted prior art. Pet. Reply 4–7 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 24–26). Petitioner specifically argues that Patent Owner implies that “(1) the imitation must be an exact duplicate in display and manner of input . . . or (2) the imitation relates only to the display and touch screen aspects.” Pet. Reply 4–5. In support of its position that Patent Owner’s interpretation of “to imitate” improperly narrows the meaning of “emulate,” Petitioner contends the written description discloses “less than full replication as emulation” and “controlling the handheld device th[r]ough control of a projected image using a variety of control input mechanisms provides emulation.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:2–5, 3:57–61, 4:63–66, 6:24–42). Petitioner also notes that the dictionary definition Patent Owner proffered indicates that an exact duplication is not required. Pet. Reply 7 (“The complete definition of emulate [as] ‘to imitate in an effort to equal or surpass.’ Ex. 1004, 3”). We conclude that a preponderance of evidence supports the construction of the term “emulate” to mean “to imitate,” without any further restriction such as exact duplication or only display or touch screen aspects. Accordingly, we construe the term “emulate” as “to imitate.”” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at or before the priority date of the ’955 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in the field of automotive information systems.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–39); Ex. 1034 ¶ 14 (Petitioner’s expert reiterating the same level of ordinary skill in the art). Patent Owner does not propose an ordinary level of skill in the art. We agree with and adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art as articulated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 9,671,955 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,671,955 - Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Invt Spe LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 8, 2020 · IPR2018-01476 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 are unpatentable as obvious over Paulraj, Walton, and Huang; the Wallace and Walton ground does not establish the required simultaneity.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or an equivalent as well as three years of experience working with “multi-antenna wireless communication systems,” or one year of such experience with a master’s degree in electrical engineering focusing on communications systems. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s 2 U.S. Patent No. 6,067,290, issued May 23, 2000 (Ex. 1005, “Paulraj”). 3 H. Huang et al., Achieving High Data Rates in CDMA Systems Using BLAST Techniques, in CONFERENCE RECORD, IEEE GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE 2316 (1999) (Ex. 1006, “Huang”). 4 U.S. Patent No. 7,095,709 B2, issued Aug. 22, 2006 (Ex. 1008, “Walton”). 5 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0193146 A1, published Dec. 19, 2002 (Ex. 1009, “Wallace”). formulation of the level of skill in the art, and applies it for its arguments. PO Resp. 10. Based on the information presented in the Petition and Dr. Singer’s testimony, we agree with Petitioner’s formulation, which is supported by the record and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). B.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“limiting. See Pet. Reply 5; PO Sur-reply 7–8; Tr. 8:5–15. “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, 182 F.3d at 1305). On the other hand, a preamble generally 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. (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). For example, if “deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention,” the preamble is not limiting. Id. at 809 (citing IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Here, we are persuaded the preamble is limiting. Although the parties dispute whether spatial multiplexing and transmit diversity occur simultaneously, it is undisputed that spatial multiplexing is part of the claimed invention. See Pet. 2; PO Resp. 6; Tr. 6:13–26 (Petitioner indicating “we agree that the claims require transmit diversity and signal multiplexing”). The Specification supports this view. For example, the Specification states that “i[t] is an object of the present invention to improve reception performance of specific data on a receiving side while maintaining the transmission efficiency of a communication system.” Ex. 1001, 2:3–6 (emphasis added). The technique for improving transmission efficiency disclosed in the Specification is spatial multiplexing. See id. at 5:13–17 (describing “two transmission systems to transmit different items of data, [which] maintains high transmission efficiency”), Figs. 3, 4; see also id. at 1:42–47 (indicating “signals sent from a plurality of transmission antennas at the same timing and same frequency in substream units” help “realize a high-speed, high-volume communication”). Further, the only part of claim 1 that recites spatial multiplexing is the preamble. See Pet. Reply 3–6; PO Sur-reply 4; Ex. 1020, 21:22–22:18. Neither party indicates that any other claim language captures spatial multiplexing. Thus, if the preamble is not limiting, claim 1 would not incorporate spatial multiplexing at all, which is inconsistent with how the invention is described in the Specification. Consequently, we determine that the preamble of claim 1 recites “essential structure or steps” and, thus, is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. See Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at 808.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The final limitation of claim 1 (the “wherein” clause) recites “generat[ing] a replica data item by replicating a specific data item of the plurality of data items, and map[ping] the plurality of data items to the at least one of the plurality of antennas such that the specific data item and the replica data item are transmitted from different antennas at a same time.” It is undisputed that this limitation recites transmit diversity. Critically, as Patent Owner observes, this limitation recites “a specific data item of the plurality of data items” (emphasis added), i.e., the “specific data item” that is replicated for transmit diversity is part of the same “plurality of data items” recited in the preamble for spatial multiplexing. See PO Resp. 7 (“Therefore, the specific data item described in transmit diversity (TD) with the replica data item, is also involved in spatial multiplexing (SM) at the same time . . . with other data items of the plurality [of] data items . . . .”); PO Sur-reply 4 (asserting that the “same ‘plurality of data items’ are subject to spatial multiplexing in the preamble and transmit diversity in [the ‘wherein’ clause]”); Tr. 44:22–45:2. Consequently, in order for both the preamble limitations and the “wherein” clause limitations to be met, a plurality of data items, including the specific data item, must be transmitted via spatial multiplexing, i.e., using a plurality of antennas in parallel. In other words, both the specific data item and at least one other data item that is different (i.e., the recited “plurality”) must be transmitted at the same time. In addition, both the specific data item and its replica data item must also be transmitted at the same time, as recited in the “wherein” clause, for transmit diversity. Thus, at least three data items—the specific data item, its replica, and another different data item—must be transmitted at the same time to satisfy the claim because both spatial multiplexing (preamble) and transmit diversity (“wherein” clause) must occur. See PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 2–3; Ex. 1020, 12:17–21. As a result, the claim requires simultaneity.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based on the complete trial record, we agree with Petitioner’s reasoning and evidence discussed above. Consequently, we find that a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the combination of Paulraj, Walton, and Huang teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 6, including the requirement of simultaneity. Patent Owner advances several arguments opposing Petitioner’s contentions, which we find unpersuasive for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,764,711 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,764,711 - Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Invt Spe LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2018-01475 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under §103 over Tomlinson and Malkamaki; claims 1, 2, 4, 10, and 11 are also unpatentable over Davis and Wei.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Although we agree with Patent Owner that the broadest reasonable interpretation does not simply mean the broadest interpretation (PO Resp. 13), we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the broadest reasonable claim construction for “first information sequence” should be “important information.” Id. at 15. As Petitioner points out during oral arguments, the claims are not specific as to what “first information” is other than “first” is merely used to “differentiate” it from “second” information, “a very common thing when it comes to patent claim drafting.” Tr. 18. As Petitioner points out, “the Federal Circuit said the use of terms first and second is a common patent law convention to distinguish between repeated 12 instances of an element or limitation, which is exactly how Patent Owner has used it here.” Id. (citing 3M Innovative, 350 F.3d at 1371). Further, as Petitioner points out, dependent claims 5–6 and 13–14 limit the “first information sequence” from the respective independent claims to “specific types of information,” including “retransmission information” and information “used for an error control.” Pet. Reply 1–2. That is, “where the applicant intended to limit an information sequence to a specific type, it made those narrowing characteristics express.” Id. at 2 (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“Other claims . . . can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term.”)). As Petitioner points out, here, Applicant chose not to limit (at least in the independent claims) the sequences of bits “to any particular type.” Id. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification shows that (1) “features of the present invention as a whole” limit the scope of the claims and (2) the Specification’s repeated descriptions mapping “important information” to “the first and second bits.” PO Sur-reply 5. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification, we construe the term “first” information sequence as a particular information sequence, and “second” information sequence as another information sequence distinguishable from the “first.” The Specification, including the claim language and the prosecution history, do not compel any different conclusion. We also are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that adding a subjective term such as “important” into the claim construction would 13 introduce ambiguity. Tr. 20–21. Thus, we agree that we should not adopt a construction that replaces an unambiguous claim limitation with one that depends on purely subjective opinion. See Intellectual Ventures, 902 F.3d at 1381. Thus, we conclude “first information sequence” can be any information sequence that if different from a “second information sequence,” wherein “a sequence of bits” are generated including “at least one bit” of each of the first and second information sequences. Ex. 1001, 10:50–67.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“As for the other claim limitations, we determine that we need not further construe expressly any other claim terms to resolve the arguments before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not challenge the Petition’s definition of the level of skill of a POSITA. See generally PO Resp. We adopt and apply Dr. Singer’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is 3 Neither party has presented arguments regarding objective evidence of nonobviousness in the instant proceeding. 16 consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Although Petitioner acknowledges that Patent Owner relies on Dr. Nettleton to dispute that Tomlinson’s 12-bit sequence of symbol words is a “sequence of bits,” Petitioner contends that “Dr. Nettleton later recanted that opinion.” Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1021, 18:23–19:22). In particular, Petitioner contends that Dr. Nettleton “confirmed” that Tomlinson’s signal organizer “recombines bits from the base and overlay stream into ‘a sequence of bits,’ i.e., the symbol words.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1021, 48:10– 20). That is, in Dr. Nettleton’s deposition, he confirmed that in Figure 3 of Tomlinson, “the information bits from the base stream and the overlay stream are . . . recombined back into a sequence of bits,” wherein “that sequence of bits” are the “symbol words.” Ex. 1021, 48:10–20. We agree with Petitioner that Tomlinson’s signal organizer 16 is arranged to receive the base and overlay streams and to generate “a succession of symbol words of binary form.” See Ex. 1007, 16:54–56. Based on this teaching by Tomlinson, and the deposition of Dr. Nettleton (Ex. 1021, 48:10–20), we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Tomlinson’s signal organizer generates 12 bits per frame including 8 bits from the base stream and 4 bits from the second/overlay stream. Pet. 17.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 7,760,815 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,760,815 - Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Invt Spe LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 21, 2020 · IPR2018-01472 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable under § 103 over Nakamura and Okumura, and independently over Bhagalia and Abe.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“With respect to claim 1, according to Petitioner, the claim includes “limitations in means-plus function format, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the [Applicant] intended to invoke § 112, ¶ 6.”2 Pet. 8–9; see also Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the Decision on Institution, we addressed Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the means-plus-function (“MPF”) terms, and we determined that Petitioner had set forth proposed structures that support these limitations. Dec. on Inst. 9–12 (citing Pet. 9–11); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). As we noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s constructions presume that the meaning of specific functions, such as “generating” a frame, for example, are generally known. Dec. on Inst. 10. Patent Owner 2 Applicant is Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. 9 has not rebutted this presumption. Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the means-plus-function terms in the claims (Pet. 9–11) are as follows:” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“As for the other claim limitations of independent claims 1, 5, 12, and 15, and claims 2, 3, 6, 13, and 16 depending respectively therefrom, for the reasons set forth below, the explicit requirements set forth in claims themselves sufficiently limit the claims without requiring further construction. Thus, we determine that we need not further construe expressly any other claim terms to resolve the arguments before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties propose similar levels of ordinary skill in the art and do not directly challenge the other’s proposal. We consider the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding 14 that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art). In general, we agree with the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. Patent Owner has not explained sufficiently why researching or working particularly with “cellular radio communication systems” is necessary (PO Resp. 12), and so we adopt Petitioner’s proposed general experience of working with “digital communication systems or in network engineering” (Pet. 6), which comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. Accordingly, we determine that a person of ordinary skill would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent plus three years of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering with an emphasis on communication systems or the equivalent plus one year of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“original); also Pet. 24–25). Even Patent Owner concedes that Claim 12 of Nakamura discloses that “necessary signals could include ‘one or more’ of pilot signals, synchronization information, order number, and TPC information.” Sur-Reply 4 (citing 1004, 15:51–61). The Supreme Court has stated that the “combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416; Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 416). According to Petitioner, “[t]he proposed modification to Nakamura would be straightforward, not requiring undue experimentation, and would produce predictable results.” Pet. 25. That is, “it would have been natural and an application of nothing more than ordinary skill and common sense.” Id. at 25–26. Here, the question is whether combining Okumura’s teaching of using both pilot and TPC symbols in the same necessary signal with Nakumura’s necessary signals comprising control data, such as pilot symbols and TPC symbols, was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters, 485 F.3d at 1162 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 421). As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s Expert, “Dr. Vojcic admitted that no technical barriers would have prevented a POSITA from modifying the expressly disclosed embodiments of Nakamura to combine pilot and TPC symbols.” Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1016, 34:14–35:20). We view Petitioner’s combination as being akin to a simple substitution of Okumura’s use of both pilot and TPC 34 symbols in Nakamura’s necessary signals. Cf. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (indicating determining obviousness is easier when the claimed subject matter involves “a simple substitution for one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.”). We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that “[t]he Petition’s proposed combination of Nakamura and Okumura is guided by the ’563 patent and driven by hindsight.” PO Resp. 32. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that Nakamura and Okumura provide sufficient motivation for combining the references in the manner required by the claims. Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1004, 15:53–61; Ex. 1005, 14, 18, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–54). First, although Patent Owner contends that “there is no discussion of the benefits gained by sending both pilot and power control symbols” (PO Resp. 32 (citing Pet. 21), we agree with Petitioner that Nakamura explains that pilot symbols permit ‘coherent detection with interpolation at a receiving side’ and that power control symbols permit ‘carrying out a transmission power control’” and this provides a reason one of ordinary skill in the art would make Petitioner’s proposed combination. Ex. 1004, 11:48–50 (“In this eighth embodiment, the necessary signal generation unit 10 includes pilot signals to be used in carrying out the coherent detection with interpolation at a receiving side”), 13:11–14 (“In this eleventh embodiment, the necessary signal generation unit 10 includes a transmission power control information which is necessary in carrying out a transmission power control.”); Pet. 21 (quoting Ex. 1004, 11:48–50, 13:11–14)). Thus, although Patent Owner contends that Nakamura “does not” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 6,466,563 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,466,563 - NEC Corporation / Nokia Corporation et al. v. Neptune Subsea IP LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 25, 2019 · IPR2018-01157 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamamoto and Nishimoto; the Chowdhury and Webb grounds, with or without Tanaka162, do not establish unpatentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided for petitioner
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that each of claims 13–20 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties submit and we agree that there is no need to construe any term to resolve the issues in this decision. See Pet. 7–9; PO Resp. 6; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“e. Summary For the reasons described above, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have had reason to combine Yamamoto’s and Nishimoto’s teachings as asserted by Petitioner and that the combination teaches all of claim 13’s limitations. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 13 would have been obvious over Yamamoto and Nishimoto.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“tunable compensators is a contingent argument, applicable only if one reads claim 13 to require a certain transmission rate. PO Resp. 21–25. We do not read Petitioner’s argument as so constrained. Rather, we understand Petitioner to argue that a desire for higher transmission speeds would drive skilled artisans to use solutions such as Nishimoto’s tunable compensators, particularly in light of Nishimoto’s guidance regarding the ability to achieve high speeds with the system. See Pet. 21–23. In that regard, we agree with Petitioner that the increase in transmission rates from Yamamoto’s to Nishimoto’s disclosures would have given skilled artisans reason to consider Nishimoto’s teachings. Pet. Reply 16–18 (citing Ex. 1005 8:9–11; Ex. 1007, 12:37–39). As Petitioner points out, Nishimoto specifically discloses that higher-speed transmissions were more sensitive to dispersion. Pet. Reply 17 n.9. Thus, we find the desire for higher transmission speeds and the need for techniques such as taught by Nishimoto would have given skilled artisans reasons to combine Nishimoto’s disclosure regarding dispersion compensation with Yamamoto’s system to achieve Yamamoto’s goals regarding the dispersion maps for multiple channels. Further, Petitioner does not rest entirely on the desire for high-speed operation. Petitioner argues also that using Nishimoto’s adjustable compensators and feedback control would “yield an improved WDM system capable of automatic compensation for degradation of the optical signal waveform caused by both wavelength dispersion and polarization mode dispersion of the optical transmission path, resulting in further reduced size and cost.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 99, 101; Ex. 1007, 3:41–60, 4:3–58, Figs. 17, 20, 21), 29–30 (quoting Ex. 1007, Abstract, 3:37–40, 6:56–64, 7:53–56, 11:41–46, 17:53–55, 17:59–60; citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114–115); accord id. at 14 (quoting Ex. 1007, 3:19–25). Patent Owner recognizes that basis for the combination but argues that the record lacks evidence to support Petitioner’s claim of reduced size and cost. PO Resp. 25–26. Patent Owner does not contest that the modification would give Yamamoto’s system the ability to automatically compensate for signal degradation from dispersion. Nishimoto discloses that as transmission speeds increase, “changes in wavelength dispersion characteristics due to temperature changes of optical fiber; and the influence by polarization mode dispersion” both “can not be neglected,” therefore requiring a system for automatically compensating for wavelength dispersion and polarization mode dispersion,” as taught by Nishimoto. Ex. 1007, 1:34–41. We find that a skilled artisan would have had reason to make the combination because the system would gain capability for automatic compensation. Regarding reduced size and cost resulting from the combination, Patent Owner does not provide any contrary evidence and we conclude that Nishimoto’s statements regarding the benefit of its invention also would have motivated skilled artisans to make the combination. See Ex. 1007, 3:17–26 (“to thereby provide a dispersion compensating apparatus of reduced sizes at a reduced cost”).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,351,798 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,351,798 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 6, 2018 · IPR2017-01150 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 are unpatentable as obvious over Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and Moro, Reiter, or Remillard.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 would have been obvious over the combination of Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and either Moro (48Pet.), Reiter (49Pet.), or Remillard (50Pet.).” slip op. at 126
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“12. Motion to Exclude Patent Owner moves to exclude paragraphs 8, 24, 27–30, 32 and 38 of” slip op. at 123
Patent outcomesUS 6,418,556 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,418,556 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 6, 2018 · IPR2017-01148 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations in each of the three trials.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 would have been obvious over the combination of Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and either Moro (48Pet.), Reiter (49Pet.), or Remillard (50Pet.). IV. ORDER ORDERED that 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 of U.S. Patent No. 6,418,556 B1 are unpatentable as a result of each trial as a separate matter, IPR2017-01148, IPR2017-01149, and IPR2017-01150;” slip op. at 126
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“observations from that deposition or seek authorization to file a sur-reply. In view of these circumstances, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 126
Patent outcomesUS 6,418,556 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,418,556 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 6, 2018 · IPR2017-01151 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 23 and 25–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and any one of Moro, Reiter, or Remillard.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“would not have interpreted Young ’801’s system as restricted to a single page limited to time slots ranging from 11:00 am to 12:30 pm as depicted in Figure 6 of Young ’801. See Ex. 1720 ¶ 24 (describing Dr. Bovik’s restricted view of Young ’801 as unreasonable). This restricted reading of Young ’801 unreasonably constrains the use of the guide to 1.5 hours, something the Petitions do not do, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments that the Reply shifts to new theories. See Rep. Opp. Mot. Exc. 2–5. To elaborate and address Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Bovik’s testimony, Mr. Wechselberger responds with a citation documenting well-known cursor navigation aspects of the same concept involved in spreadsheets (Ex. 1722) and elaborates about minimal program guide layout or format changes that go hand-in-hand with the Petitions’ assertions of guide size reduction. See Ex. 1720 ¶ 24; Opp. Mot. Exc. 9–11 (discussing Ex. 1720 ¶¶ 36–37, 129– 131, 136–137, 158), 11 (noting Dr. Bovik stated in his deposition “a user would have been ‘confined to the visible screen’”) (citing Ex. 1721, 56:16– 23, 108:25–109:8, 116:17–117:2; Ex. 2706 ¶¶ 51–52). In summary, the Petition cites to portions of Young ’801 that describe the page mode and generally advance the theory of moving a cursor across, upward, and to the right to obtain consecutively displayed and successive portions of schedule information, citing portions that describe new pages and cursor jumps. Petitioner did not create a new theory about how the page guide operates but responded to Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent Owner chose not to avail itself of the opportunity to depose Dr. Wechselberger about his second declaration and thereafter file observations from that deposition or seek authorization to file a sur-reply. In view of these circumstances, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 92
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“materially similar description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 2706 ¶¶ 1–19). During the Oral Hearing, Patent Owner indicated any differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s descriptions do not create a dispositive issue. See Tr. 66:11–18. On this record, Petitioner’s description comports with the level of ordinary skill implied by the prior art references discussed further below. Accordingly, we adopt it.” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“8. Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and Moro Petitioner persuasively shows that claims 23 and 25–27 the” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 6,418,556 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,418,556 - Tricklestar LLC v. Embertec Pty Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01336 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379; claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over EP ’379 and EP ’752.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt that definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. See Ex. 1001, 1:14–15 (“The invention relates to aspects of the monitoring of electrical power supply to electrical equipment.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to a method and system to provide power saving for electronic devices while such devices are in the standby mode and are not in use, particularly for a setting accommodating multiple electronic devices especially in the end-user sector.”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to an automatic means switch device used to disconnect a load from” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we do not need to expressly construe “input” (claim 1), “electrical input” (claim 9), “sensor” (claims 1 and 9), and “alert device” (claim 5) to determine whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–7 and 9 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“EP ’379 was published April 22, 2009. Ex. 1002, [43]. Because EP ’379 was published before the earliest possible invention date of record in this proceeding, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that EP ’379 is prior art to claims 1–4, 7, and 9 of the ’099 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Pet. 16. As illustrated above, Petitioner adds red ovals around what it contends, and with which we agree, correspond to the claimed sensor and microprocessor: infrared receiver unit 10 and microprocessor 12. Id. EP ’379 discloses that infrared receiver unit 10 is coupled to microprocessor 12 and that the infrared receiver unit monitors wireless output signals from a remote control. Ex. 1002, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 24, 26. Specifically, EP ’379 discloses that “the signals of the remote controls of electronic devices connected to the subject controller [are] sensed, identified, and interpreted by the controller.” Id. ¶ 23; see also id. ¶ 26 (stating that “the remote control signals controlling the devices connected to the controller can also be sensed by the controller”). According to EP ’379, “[t]he controller unit identifies as to which electronic device’s remote control the user has depressed by means of the signal receiver (10) on itself.” Id. ¶ 24. EP ’379 also discloses that the microprocessor terminates power supplied to the external electrical device based upon the absence of detection of signals from the remote control. Id. ¶ 26. EP ’379 states the following: The controller can be set to a predetermined time period in order to save power, and if no signal is received within this time period from a remote control of any device connected to it, the controller can turn OFF such devices in turn or at the same time according to a predetermined power saving rule. Id. EP ’379 adds an example of a user setting the automatic turn-off period to three hours. Id. Under this example, according to EP ’379, “if the user does not depress any key on any remote control of any electronic device connected to the controller, or if no signal is sensed by the controller within three hours, the controller may power off the electronic devices connected to itself in sequence according to an automatic turning-off rule.” Id. In sum, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,106,099 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,106,099 - Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · CBM2016-00034 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–3 and 5 are also anticipated by Riach, and specified claims are obvious over combinations of Riach, Graf, Gustin, and Anderson.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“For these reasons, we determine that claim 20—its focus and its” slip op. at 37
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that claim 20 is directed to an” slip op. at 52
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“encompasses Riach’s process that copies a portion (but not all) of the original check image data to produce the required modified check image data. Accordingly, we agree that the portion of Riach on which Petitioner relies discloses step (b) of claim 1 that requires, among other limitations, the modified check image data not include at least some visual feature data included in the check image data. Pet. 30 (relying on Ex. 1008, 5:16–30, Figs. 4, 7).” slip op. at 73
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Apple, 839 F.3d at 1058 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 89
Patent outcomesUS 7,314,163 unpatentable§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,314,163
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.