• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00358 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under § 103 over Wise and Shaffer, with Burrows added for claims 3–15; the Board did not reach the Kovatch-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing.” Pet. 4–5. Petitioner adds that “[m]ore education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Mr. Lipoff supports this articulation, and neither Patent Owner nor Mr. Winters proposes any different articulation. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 74; Ex. 2063 ¶ 41 (Mr. Winters stating factors considered in defining a person of ordinary skill in the art, without stating the education or experience held by such a person). Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, uncontroverted, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by Mr. Lipoff’s testimony, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10

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

    “meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party proposes any express construction of any term. Pet. 5 (“Petitioner does not believe that any express constructions are necessary to resolve the invalidity issues presented in this petition”); PO Resp. 1 (“Patent Owner believes that claim construction is unnecessary and all terms of the Challenged Claims should be given their plain and ordinary meanings.”). On the record before us, we do not find it necessary to construe any term for purposes of this Decision. 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))).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Ex. 1001, 19:64–20:5. For this “sequential access” limitation, Petitioner relies on Shaffer’s disclosure of sequentially accessing websites according to a list, until a user is satisfied with what has been returned or the list is exhausted. Pet. 55–56. Supported by Mr. Lipoff’s testimony, Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine Shaffer’s sequential access technique with Wise’s system “because it would have been beneficial to maximize the likelihood of finding the desired information more quickly and efficiently use computing resources, by searching in the most likely sources first, and proceeding through Wise’s index list until the user is satisfied or the list is exhausted.” Id. at 56 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 243). Patent Owner does not specifically dispute Petitioner’s reasons for effecting the combination of teachings from Wise and Shaffer, which we find sufficiently articulated and supported; instead, Patent Owner contends that the combination does not meet the sequential access limitation. See PO Resp. 78 (“Assuming, arguendo, this is a combination a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would consider, this combination does not disclose this claim limitation.”). Patent Owner makes two points in this respect. First, Patent Owner reiterates its contention, addressed above, that “Mr. Lipoff expressly does not rely on the Wise search index (option 1) for his opinion of the Wise disclosure of a plurality of websites.” PO Resp. 78. For the reasons we discuss in the preceding subsection, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s argument relies on “a misinterpretation of out-of-context deposition testimony.” Reply 6. As Petitioner adds, Wise discloses that an “index may be stored as one or more documents preferably in a hierarchical order” and “[t]he user may use the navigation commands to traverse the index and invoke a link to a source document.” Id. at 8; Ex. 1007, 10:7–10. Second, Patent Owner takes the position that the claim language precludes user interaction or instructions during the process of the sequential search. See PO Resp. 80. But Patent Owner provides insufficient evidentiary support for that position, and we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s interpretation invokes a negative limitation that is unsupported by the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language. See Reply 8. “While a negative limitation need not be recited in the specification in haec verba, there generally must be something in the specification that conveys to a skilled artisan that the inventor intended the exclusion.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). In this instance, both parties and both experts agree that the specification of the ’941 patent is silent with respect to user participation during sequential access. PO Resp. 81 (Patent Owner asserting that “[t]he ’941 patent is silent as to the participation of a user in the sequential search process”); Ex. 2063 ¶” slip op. at 25

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on these facts, we find insufficient reason to exclude user interaction from the plain and ordinary meaning of the sequential access limitation. We thus determine that Shaffer—which clearly involves user interaction, see Ex. 1011, 6:3–29—meets the limitation. We also determine that Petitioner articulates sufficient reason, supported by rational underpinning, to achieve the combination of teachings it proposes. We accordingly determine that Petitioner makes a sufficient showing for the sequential access limitation. 5 In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner asserts that “[a]s discussed in the [Patent Owner Response], the ’941 specification teaches against the notion of user interaction in the claim limitations involving sequentially accessing.” Sur-Reply 6 (citing PO Resp. 80–81). We disagree with this characterization of the Patent Owner Response, and treat this assertion as a new argument impermissibly raised for the first time in the Sur-reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“A sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply”). Regardless, even if we considered this argument, we would find it unpersuasive. Based on our independent review of the specification of the ’941 patent, in agreement with both experts, and in agreement with other statements of both parties, we find the specification to be “silent” on user interaction. See also Tr. 48:25–49:23 (Patent Owner conceding at oral hearing that the specification “is silent” on this issue).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 7,881,941 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,881,941
• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 1, 2023 · IPR2022-00523 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–2 as obvious over Wise and Shaffer, and claims 3–15 as obvious over Wise, Shaffer, and Burrows.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Lipoff, contends that a POSITA “would have had a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering, computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience with voice interfaces and information processing,” wherein “[m]ore education could substitute for less experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40, 61–74). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. See generally PO Resp. 2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’402 patent was filed before March 16, 2013, the effective date of the relevant amendment, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies. claimed invention because, based on the record, this proposal is consistent with the ’402 patent, the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lipoff.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any claim construction. See Pet. 5; See generally PO Resp. We do not perceive a need to construe any claim terms of the ’402 patent to resolve the disputed issues before us. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need to be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”))); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 10

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

    “While a negative limitation need not be recited in the specification in haec verba, there generally must be something in the specification that conveys to a skilled artisan that the inventor intended the exclusion.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Here, Patent Owner does not provide sufficient evidentiary support that conveys an intended exclusion of user interaction during sequential access. Instead, both parties and both experts merely point out that the specification of the ’402 patent is silent with respect to user participation during sequential access. PO Resp. 73 (Patent Owner asserting that “the ’402 patent is silent as to the participation of a user in the sequential search process”); Ex. 2063 ¶ 289 (Mr. Winters testifying that “there is no disclosure in the specification of the ’402 patent related to user interaction in the sequential search process”); Pet. Reply 5 (Petitioner asserting that Patent Owner is “[i]mporting a requirement that user interaction is precluded by the claims—a negative limitation, when the specification is wholly silent on it”); Ex. 2061, 107:15–22 (Mr. Lipoff agreeing that “there’s no specific mention of the user interacting” in the portion of the specification related to “the sequential search”). As the Federal Circuit explained in Novartis, silence is not sufficient support for a negative limitation. See Novartis, 38 F.4th at 1017. interaction from the plain and ordinary meaning of the sequential access limitation. Instead, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on Shaffer for disclosing the sequential access limitation as recited. See Ex. 1011, 6:3–29. In particular, Shaffer discloses determining whether a system is at the end of a list of sites to visit, and sequentially visiting the sites until the user is satisfied. Ex. 1011, 6:3–29. Furthermore, Wise’s system accesses web pages relating to a subject phrase to retrieve user-requested information. Ex. 1007, 6:31–49. We credit the supporting testimony of Mr. Lipoff, which is consistent with the teachings of Wise and Shaffer, in which he testified that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Wise’s system that accesses websites to retrieve user-requested information based on Shaffer, resulting in a system that accesses websites sequentially/subsequently until information is found. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 200. We disagree with Patent Owner that the ’402 patent’s specification “teaches against the notion of user interaction in the claimed ‘sequentially accessing’ operation,” which “is time consuming and inefficient.” PO Resp. 73–75. A given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, which “does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, Petitioner has articulated sufficient reason, supported by rational underpinning, to effect the combination of teachings it proposes. We credit Petitioner’s contention, which is supported by Mr. Lipoff’s testimony, that a POSITA would have been motivated “to apply Shaffer’s sequential search technique when retrieving information from websites in Wise’s ranked index” in order to “maximize the likelihood of finding the desired information and efficiently use computing resources by searching in slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,185,402 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,185,402
• Infineon Technologies AG v. Feinics Amatech TeorantaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00417 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–12, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Takeda-322.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties are in general agreement as to the level of education (undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent) and the number of years of experience working with RFID devices (1–2 years), but differ as to the exact nature of that experience (developing antennae used in RFID devices versus developing antennae used in RFID devices for inductive coupling). The Specification of the ’250 patent describes its technical field as relating to a smart card that may comprise an RFID (radio frequency identification) chip with antenna components for operating in contactless modes. Ex. 1001, 1:37–54. The Specification discusses both inductive and capacitive coupling. See, e.g., id. at 3:14–39. Patent Owner submitted into the record a text titled RFID Handbook, which details different frequencies and types of coupling that may be at use by various RFID systems. See Ex. 2005, 22–23. Although this text differentiates between “inductively or capacitively coupled system[s] and microwave system[s] or backscatter system[s]” (id. at 23 (emphasis omitted)), its description of each of these types of RFID devices indicates that an ordinary artisan would have had experience with RFID devices generally. Thus, we are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill should be narrowly confined to developing antenna for RFID devices that are used for inductive coupling. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1–2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Pet. 7.5” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, for several reasons. Patent Owner first argues that Dr. van der Weide lacks relevant experience to provide opinions through the lens of a person having ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 27–38 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 71). According to Patent Owner, Dr. van der Weide “has experience with RFID that operates at microwave frequencies,” but “identifies no experience with relevant inductive RFID systems at lower frequencies (e.g., frequencies such as 13.56MHz and 8.2MHz).” Id. This argument is based on Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we have not adopted. Moreover, Petitioner presents evidence that Dr. Van der Weide’s experience exceeds even Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. Reply 22–23 (citations omitted). Dr. van der Weide’s education and experience are sufficient to allow us to grant his testimony our full consideration. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–7; Ex. 1004 (van der Weide curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededTerm construed board ownMixed

    “appears in independent claims 1 and 18) should be construed as “a component in a booster antenna for coupling with a module antenna connected to an integrated circuit.” PO Resp. 15–16. We determine that it is unnecessary to construe this claim term for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017 (“[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))). As we explain herein, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Takeda-322 renders the recited “coupler coil” obvious even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Section III(G)(2)(b), infra.” slip op. at 13

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

    “to the extent Takeda-322 does not expressly teach a single wire implementation, such an implementation would have been obvious because it was a known, conventional, technique and because it would lead to obvious and predictable results while avoiding drawbacks of multiple wires. Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–63; Ex. 1012, 3:54–60, 4:26–36, 5:35– 60 (Ayala suggesting use of single wire)). Petitioner further argues, with supporting evidence, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving this implementation. Id. The preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had both reason and a reasonable expectation of success in achieving this implementation, and Patent Owner does not dispute the argument. We, thus, determine that a single-wire embodiment of Takeda-322 would have been obvious.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,033,250 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,033,250
• Infineon Technologies AG v. Feinics Amatech TeorantaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2023 · IPR2022-00235 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 over Takeda-322 under §§ 102 and 103, claims 1–6 over Murayama under § 102, and claim 7 over Murayama under §§ 102 and 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentDecided for patent owner

    “Under the circumstances of this case, we do not agree that adverse judgment with respect to the disclaimed claims is appropriate. Our Rules, provide that a party may request judgment against itself. 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). Here, Patent Owner is not requesting adverse judgment against itself. While it is true that 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) provides that “[a]ctions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include . . . (2) [c]ancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial” (emphasis added), we decline to construe Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer as a request for adverse judgment in this proceeding because Patent Owner does not disclaim all challenged claims and the majority of the challenged claims remain in this trial.” slip op. at 4

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties are in general agreement as to the level of education (undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent) and the number of years of experience working with RFID devices (1–2 years), but differ as to the exact nature of that experience (developing antennae used in RFID devices versus developing antennae used in RFID devices for inductive coupling). Petitioner points out that “the claims are not limited to a [Booster Antenna (BA)] operating at any particular frequency range.” Reply 25. In addition, Patent Owner submitted into the record a text titled RFID Handbook, which details different frequencies and types of coupling that may be at use by various RFID systems. See Ex. 2005, 22–23. Although this text differentiates between “inductively or capacitively coupled system[s] and microwave system[s] or backscatter system[s]” (id. at 23 (emphasis omitted)), its description of each of these types of RFID devices indicates that an ordinary artisan would have had experience with RFID devices generally. Thus, we are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill should be narrowly confined to developing antenna for RFID devices that are used for inductive coupling. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1– 2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” Pet. 87.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, because he “he lacks relevant experience, his testimony runs counter to fundamental principles of the RFID technology disclosed in the ’932 patent, and his testimony evidences a lack of candor.” PO Resp. 46. According to Patent Owner, Dr. van der Weide “has experience with RFID that operates at microwave frequencies,” but “identifies no experience with inductive RFID systems at lower frequencies (e.g., frequencies such as 13.56MHz and 8.2MHz).” Id. This argument is based on Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we have not adopted. Moreover, Petitioner presents evidence that Dr. Van der Weide’s experience exceeds even Patent 7 We further note that our final determination, on the merits, would be the same even under Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Reply 25–27. Dr. van der Weide’s education and experience are sufficient to allow us to grant his testimony our full consideration. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–7; Ex. 1004 (van der Weide curriculum vitae).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner asserts that “[n]o claim term requires an exact outer boundary construction, because the prior art relied upon herein meets the claim terms under any reasonable interpretation.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner proposes constructions for the claim terms “booster antenna,” “card antenna component,” “coupler coil component,” and “extension antenna component.” PO Resp. 25–45. According to Patent Owner, Petitioner also has proposed its own constructions for these terms, despite stating that no claim term requires construction. Id. at 25–26. We address “booster antenna” and “extension antenna” below.8 It is unnecessary to construe “card antenna component” or “coupler coil component” in this Decision 8 Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner belated construes “card body” in Petitioner’s Reply. Sur-Reply 16–18. We do not construe “card body” because this construction is not necessary to resolve this matter. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). because none of the parties’ disputes turn on the meaning of either term. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 9,195,932 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,195,932
• T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Traxcell Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2022-00669 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the six asserted combinations of Bruce and Hancock with Meadows, Knockeart, and/or Moles.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Either proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation, although the conclusions reached in the decision would be the same even if Patent Owner’s proposal was adopted.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner states, “[n]o claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not propose any claim constructions. PO Resp. 3–4. For purposes of this Decision, we do not construe any claim terms. D.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “not a communications device is a mobile wireless communications device, the reference states that the system can be used with a “landline or a mobile cellular telephone subscriber.” Ex. 1006, 3:49; see also Ex. 1006, 5:58–60 (“[t]elephone calls are primarily originated from either traditional fixed location landline telephones or mobile wireless telephones”); Ex. 1006, 5:66–6:3 (“[t]o identify the geographical location of the caller . . . several 6 Patent Owner argues that Hancock does not teach this claim requirement, and we have previously found that Hancock does not so teach. PO Resp. 15 (citing Van Essen Decl. ¶ 56); Google LLC v. Traxcell Techs., LLC, IPR2021-01004, Paper 7 at 18 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2021). techniques can be used depending on the particular telephone (i.e., landline or mobile telephone) originating the call”). The same system is used in Bruce for both fixed and mobile devices, and the same telephone number (411) is used whether fixed or mobile. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 1, 3:63–66, 5:56–58, 5:63–67; Braasch Decl. ¶ 60). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s reliance on a patent to Karp, et al. as background art, to confirm that it was well known that the phone number of a caller is used to identify whether or not a call is on a mobile phone, and that the use of Automatic Number Identification (ANI) is not limited to fixed landlines. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1009, Fig. 11B, 12:20–22; Braasch Decl. ¶ 70); Reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 1009, 1:39–44, 12:24–27).7 The record further includes support for Petitioner’s contention in the form of declarant testimony that explains, “[a] POSITA would have recognized that to select an appropriate location system 17 for a communication received over a landline or wireless network, the switch 16 or the location system 17 would first identify whether a request was made from a landline or a wireless device.” Braasch Decl. ¶ 70 (cited in the Petition at page 24); see also id. ¶ 71 (explaining that the determination would be made even if the incoming call uses a landline or a modem). We are persuaded by this evidence and credit the Braasch testimony in this regard.” slip op. at 19

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

    “We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence summarized above (which we adopt) and determine that Petitioner has provided sufficiently articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for the proffered combination of Bruce and Hancock, and the preponderance of the evidence establishes that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make that combination.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 9,918,196 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,918,196
• T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Traxcell Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2021-01552 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–30 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the six combinations of references listed in the decision.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Either proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). On this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s articulation, although the conclusions reached in the decision would be the same even if Patent Owner’s proposal was adopted.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Petitioner states, “[n]o claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not propose any claim constructions. PO Resp. 3–4. For purposes of this Decision, we do not construe any claim terms. D.” slip op. at 10

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

    “3. The Combination of Bruce and Hancock Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the geographic location-based systems of Bruce and Hancock, resulting in a combination that would have rendered obvious, for example, independent claim 1. Pet. 14–19. Petitioner first argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add to the Bruce system, the capability of accessing routing information via the Internet, as disclosed in Hancock. Pet. 15–17. Petitioner cites the fact that one embodiment of Bruce uses a computer with a modem to allow a user to obtain directions from the system, and that providing such access via the Internet, as disclosed in Hancock, would have provided well-known advantages of higher data rates, storage capacity, and additional Internet services. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 1:38–40; Ex. 1008, 42:38–42; Ex. 1011, 24:16–19, 25:1–7, 27:39–67, 32:32–41; Braasch Decl. ¶¶ 46–49). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to improve Bruce by providing more flexibility and variety in the ways for entering a destination, for which directions are requested, as disclosed in Hancock. Pet. 17–18. For example, Hancock discloses the ability to enter the names of businesses, to specify specific distances to destinations, and to use menus of possible destination locations. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 2:40–43, 8:2–3; Ex. 1011, 8:66–9:3, 13:7–15, 28:49–29:1, 30:12– 14; Braasch Decl. ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to improve Bruce by using Hancock’s improved methods of formatting requests for directions via the use of data packets. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1011, 27:27–39, 27:64–67, 28:58–65; Braasch Decl. ¶¶ 52–54). Patent Owner does not specifically respond to these arguments. See generally PO Resp. We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence summarized” slip op. at 14

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

    “As to the above claims, Patent Owner repeats its arguments with respect to claim 1 (which, as discussed above, are not persuasive), and submits additional arguments directed to claims 5, 10, and 11. PO Resp. 21–23. In regard to claim 5, Patent Owner argues that “PSTN” in the claims means “a plurality of PSTNs which service to provide location of fixed location phones,” and that Bruce provides only one PSTN. Id. at 22 (citing Van Essen Decl. ¶ 83). This argument is unpersuasive as not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Reply 15. For claims 10 and 11, Patent Owner argues that the disclosure in Bruce providing for searches for establishments “in the proximity of the caller” is not a teaching of searches for nearby businesses because “[t]he caller is distinct from ‘business.’” Id. at 23 (citing Van Essen Decl. ¶¶ 85–86) (emphasis omitted). We are unpersuaded by this argument, because a nearby business is within the proximity of a caller. Reply 16. We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence summarized above (which we adopt) and we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Bruce and Hancock.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 9,918,196 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,918,196
• Solaredge Technologies Ltd. v. Koolbridge Solar, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00013 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable under § 103(a), principally over Iwata and Bower, with additional references applied to dependent claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, and three years of design experience with power electronics, including experience designing power converters.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–23). Patent Owner neither expressly addresses Petitioner’s proposal nor proffers its own articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. But Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Foty, states that he “do[es] not dispute the Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 43. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered Patent Owner’s reiterated argument, and note that the only specific example Patent Owner identifies relates to whether Iwata’s series-connected inverters include transformers. See PO Resp. 9–10. Below, we discuss the propriety of Petitioner’s reliance on Dr. Baker’s testimony within the specific context of that example. See infra § II.E.2.a. More generally, we disagree with Patent Owner’s broader implication that there must be perfect alignment between a petition and a supporting expert declaration because “[m]erely repeating an argument from the Petition in the declaration of a proposed expert does not give that argument enhanced probative value.” Kinetic Techs, Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc., IPR2014- 00529, Paper 8 at 15 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2014); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (according “little weight” to declaration testimony that contains a verbatim restatement of a petition’s arguments without additional supporting evidence or reasoning). Indeed, expert discussion of evidence with technical reasoning to support conclusions is a valuable and important part of expert testimony that our regulations expect to be included in a declaration. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Lack of factual support for expert opinion to factual determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value in a validity determination.”) (quoting Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co., 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Although in some” slip op. at 13

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

    “Petitioner contends that “[a]ll claim terms herein should be given their ordinary and customary meaning to a [person of ordinary skill in the art], consistent with the prosecution history, as they would be given in a civil action.” Pet. 21 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)). Patent Owner states that it “does not believe any explicit claim construction is required to resolve the issues presented in the Petition.” PO Resp. 2. We agree with the parties and do not find it necessary expressly to construe any term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).6” slip op. at 14

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

    “We find Petitioner’s reasoning sufficient. In particular, Dr. Baker’s testimony provides rational underpinning for Petitioner’s reasoning to combine the teachings of Iwata and Bower as proposed. Patent Owner disputes limited aspects of Petitioner’s analysis, which we consider below.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,784,710 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,784,710
• Solaredge Technologies Ltd. v. Koolbridge Solar, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00007 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 and 20 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 and 8–10 over Tracy, claims 4 and 11 over Tracy and Fujimoto, claims 6 and 20 over Tracy and De, claim 7 over Tracy and Bond, and …

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION In the Decision to Institute we declined to treat any of the claim terms as mean-plus-function terms because the terms have an ordinary and customary meaning. Dec. to Inst. 14–15. Neither party has proposed any other claim constructions. We apply the plain and ordinary meaning in this Decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Dr. Baker’s testimony is persuasive evidence that Tracy discloses the claimed floating DC power source, as Tracy’s terminals are not permanently connected to the neutral.” slip op. at 24

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner unrealistically reads this definition to mean there can never be a connection to ground or neutral, because Patent Owner ignores the disclosure in the ’822 patent of temporarily connecting one or the other of the floating DC sources to neutral, as discussed above. Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:52–60, 4:27–40, 10:44–47, 11:1–7, 11:25–28, 23:47–52; Ex. 1074, Baker Reply Decl. ¶¶ 12–13).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,937,822 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,937,822
• Solaredge Technologies Ltd. v. Koolbridge Solar, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00010 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14–19 are unpatentable under § 103 based on combinations of Suzui, Boniface, and Gilmore, with additional references for claims 16, 17, and 19.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or similar discipline,” and “three years of design experience with power electronics, including experience designing power converters.” Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1402 ¶¶ 20–23). Patent Owner does not propose any definition for a POSITA, and Dr. Foty states that he “does not dispute the Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” See generally PO Resp.; Ex. 2006 ¶ 42. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA at the time of the claimed invention because, based on the record, this proposal is consistent with the ’822 patent, the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We determine that it is unnecessary to construe any claim term expressly to resolve the disputed issues before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). As Petitioner contends that Suzui discloses this limitation (Pet. 42–43), we do not ignore this limitation but address the limitation based on the parties’ explicit arguments with respect to Suzui.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the claimed detector must look for “a specific unusual current with specific characteristics, i.e., ‘with said common mode waveform at said characteristic frequency.’” PO Resp. 15. In particular, claim 14 recites “creating” a common-mode AC probe signal waveform “from said DC to AC converter at a characteristic repetition frequency that is in phase on both said DC positive and negative input conductors,” and the claimed detector is adapted to “detect with said” common mode waveform at said characteristic repetition frequency. See Ex. 1401, 43:21–37 (emphasis added). That is, contrary to Patent Owner’s contention that the claimed detector “must look for” the unusual current with the common mode waveform, claim 14 recites that the common mode wave form is created from the DC to AC converter at the characteristic frequency, and the detector then detects the unusual current with said created common mode waveform at the characteristic frequency. Id. As pointed out by Petitioner during oral argument, “the existence of a common [mode] waveform in Suzui is not in dispute.” Tr. 9:23–24. We find persuasive Petitioner’s reliance on Suzui to disclose “creating a common mode AC probe signal waveform from a DC to AC converter at a characteristic repetition frequency” as recited in claim 14. Pet. 37. As Dr. Baker testified, “[f]rom the DC input voltage output by solar battery 1, Suzui’s inverter generates an output AC waveform—specifically a 60 Hz, sine-shaped alternating current” which “corresponds to the claimed ‘AC output having an output waveform with an output repetition frequency,” which is then “received by Suzui’s single-phase three-wire commercial power system 3.” See Ex. 1402 ¶ 192 (citing Ex. 1406, 3:26–30, 4:60–65, 5:15–24, 5:32–40, 5:51–67, 7:43–52, Fig. 2). Further, we are also persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Suzui and Gilmore teach “detecting an imbalance current generated by the common-mode voltage.” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Pet. 37–42; Ex. 1474 45–46). In particular, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention, supported by Dr. Baker’s declaration, that Suzui’s current detector 10 “detects an imbalance between the currents flowing in the positive and negative DC conductors (zero-phase current) of the inverter (the claimed ‘a detector adapted to detect an unusual current’),” which “is generated by the 120 Hz AC voltage to ground (the claimed ‘with said common mode waveform at said characteristic repetition frequency’).” Pet. 37; see also Ex. 1402 ¶ 205. That is, we are persuaded by Dr. Baker’s testimony that, “because Suzui’s current detector 10 detects an imbalance in the zero-phase current of the DC circuit of the inverter,” a POSITA would understand Suzui to disclose “a detector adapted to detect an unusual current,” wherein “because this ‘unusual current’ is generated by the AC voltage to ground that has a frequency of 120 Hz,” the POSITA would also understand Suzui to disclose the claimed “with said common mode waveform at said characteristic repetition frequency.” Ex. 1402 ¶ 205 (citing Ex. 1406, 5:47–51, 7:46–61, Fig. 2).” slip op. at 29

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “10. Instead, we are persuaded by Dr. Baker’s testimony that Suzui’s solar battery 1 “is formed as a solar battery string by connecting a plurality of solar battery modules 1M1 to 1Mx in series such that an appropriate voltage can be output as the input voltage to the system interconnection inverter 2.” Ex. 1402 ¶ 186 (citing Ex. 1406, 4:66–5:2). We find persuasive Dr. Baker’s testimony that Suzui’s solar battery modules 1M1 to 1Mx are “arranged in an array,” wherein a POSITA “would understand that they are composed of photovoltaic cells.” Id. at ¶ 187 (citing Ex. 1406, 4:59–5:6, Figs. 2, 8).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,937,822 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,937,822
• Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Quantificare S.A.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2023 · IPR2021-01519 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 9–12, 15, 16, and 20–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Plassmann, Treuillet, and Staller, with Peng added for claims 21–23.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “In the Decision to Institute, we declined to construe this term as a means plus function term under 35 U.S.C § 112(f). Dec. to Inst. 9–12. Although Petitioner disagrees and asserts that the term “device for stereophotogrammetry” should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Petitioner presents no arguments other than those in the Petition that we addressed in the Decision to Institute. Reply 7–8. Petitioner further acknowledges that “an express construction may not be necessary for the Board to evaluate patentability.” Id. at 8. For the reasons discussed in the Decision to Institute, we do not construe device for stereophotogrammetry configured for an acquisition of two views according to two different angles as a means plus function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Our Decision to Institute applied the plain and ordinary meaning to this term without any express construction to the remaining language of this limitation, including “configured for an acquisition of two views according to two different angles.” Dec. to Inst. 9–11. In the context of the challenged claims, the parties dispute the implications of the plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Having considered the claim language, the specification, the prosecution history, and the extrinsic evidence, for the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the claim language does not mean that the sub-optics are angled, but instead means that they each view a subject from different angles.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We also agree with Petitioner that “the preamble here is not limiting, because the body of the claim provides a complete description of the device.” Reply 6–7 (citing Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The preamble for claim 1 recites “[a] device for stereophotogrammetry,” but “[g]enerally, the preamble does not limit the claims.” Ex. 1022, 11:42; Georgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Holland L.P., 867 F.3d 1229, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Regardless, as Petitioner notes, no “canon of claim construction is absolute in its application and [] some surplusage may exist in some claims.” Reply 7 (alteration in original) (quoting Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 527 F.3d 1300, 1312 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (acknowledging that proper construction of “remote interface” arguably “render[s] the term ‘public’ in [a dependent claim] surplusage”)).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Treuilett discloses the actual focal length of their lenses, but Dr. Otto states that a person of ordinary skill would understand such devices may be used with any lens suitable to the subject. Pet. 50. We agree with Petitioner that Dr. Otto’s testimony provides sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the proposition that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to select the requisite lenses to achieve the results recited in claim 11. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Having considered the arguments and evidence of record, for the reasons discussed above, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teaching of Plassmann, Treuilitt, and Staller and that their combined teachings would have disclosed or suggested the subject matter of claim 11 to a person of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 65

  Patent outcomesUS 10,681,334 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,681,334

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.