- Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 9, 2025 · IPR2024-00807 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2 and 3 are unpatentable under § 103 over Gregorio, Ramsay, Tierling, Rossi, and Aldrich; claim 2 is also unpatentable over Gregorio, Ramsay, Wakuda, Rossi, and Aldrich.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that independent claim 2 includes means-plus- function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.8 Pet. 2–6; PO Resp. 7–15. An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. In particular, the parties agree that the “driving component” and “control component” requirements of independent claim 2 are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 2–6; PO Resp. 7. Construing a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 involves two steps: 1) identifying the claimed function and 2) identifying in the specification the corresponding structure that performs the claimed function. Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. Construction of “Driving Component” Petitioner contends that the claimed function of “driving component” is “drives the moveable component to oscillate within the housing.” Pet. 5; Ex. 2002, 2. Petitioner asserts that the corresponding structure is a coil of conductive wire 420” (Figures 4A–4G); “coil 514” (Figures 5A–5B); “coil 626” (Figure 6); “electromagnet” (Figures 10-11); “additional coils 1202 and 1204” (Figure 12); “coils 1302 and 1304” (Figure 13); “driving coils 1412 and 1414” (Figure 14); “coil 1510” (Figures 15–17); “stator coils” (Figures 24A-25). Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:2–34, 5:54–59, 6:32–35, 9:11–52, 9:64–10:22, 14:59); Ex. 2002, 2.). Patent Owner states that it “does not believe that the phrase involving a ‘driving component’ needs to be construed in order to resolve any issue in this proceeding.” PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner agreed to the above construction in the Apple Litigation, and the court adopted this construction. Ex. 2002, 2. The record supports Petitioner’s position and we adopt it.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s expert declarant contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had a degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience related to the design or development of systems incorporating linear actuators; additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree. Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. Patent Owner offers “a similar level of ordinary skill in the art.” See PO Resp. 4. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’337 patent specification.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“In contrast to Petitioner’s showing, at the passage cited by Patent Owner, Dr. Goossen, Patent Owner’s expert, does not provide a basis for his opinion that “the combined system of Gregorio-Ramsay-Rossi-Aldrich does not teach the claimed output to the power supply.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 156; PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 156). To the extent Dr. Goossen addresses the issue, like Patent Owner, Dr. Goossen concedes that “a POSITA would recognize in the [annotated drawing of Gregorio supplied by Petitioner] that a power supply is required that is not shown.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 116. And also like Patent Owner, Dr. Goossen concludes that Petitioner’s rationale that an “unshown power supply receives a signal from the processor is a sweeping conclusion that does not follow.” Id. For the reasons discussed above in connection with Patent Owner’s parallel arguments, this testimony is conclusory and unsupported. Primarily, it does not adequately address Petitioner’s showing and Dr. Hannaford’s testimony, discussed above, which relies on Gregorio’s statement that “[p]rocessor 12 outputs the control signals to drive circuit 26 which includes electronic components and circuitry used to supply LRA 18 with the required electrical current and voltage to cause the desired haptic effects.” Ex. 1004, 2:36–39 (emphases added). Dr. Goossen and Patent Owner also do not address the initial finding in the Institution Decision that “[t]he ’337 patent does not disclose any detail or structure for the controllable power supply, indicating that such a controllable power supply was well-known.” Inst. Dec. 30 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:33–35 (“The power supply 612 receives a control input 624 from the CPU to control the current supplied to the H-bridge switch for transfer to the coil 626.”)).16 And while Dr. Goossen contends that Dr. Hannaford’s reliance on Ramsay to further suggest control of the power supply is conclusory because “Dr. Hannaford’s statement about ‘the current provided from a power supply to the driving component’ has nothing to do with Ramsay’s disclosure,’” Dr. Goossen addresses Ramsay and Gregorio in isolation, without adequately addressing the combination, specifically where Gregorio teaches or suggests controlling a power supply in order to provide desired LRA amplitude and frequency haptic effects, which is in line with Ramsay’s teaching of user-customizable parameters to control amplitude and frequency for the same purpose. See Ex. 2009 ¶ 126; Pet. 53–54 (summarized above). Therefore, the Petition shows persuasively that Gregorio’s processor controls Gregorio’s power supply to provide power to its haptic unit or that such power supply control would have been obvious in view of Ramsay in order to allow a user to control the desired haptic effect.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 8,860,337 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,860,337 - AT&T Mobility LLC / AT&T Services Inc. et al. v. Daingean Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00310 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4–6 and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Lee1 and Lee2; the Board found the Lee1–Lee2 combination teaches the limitations and has sufficient motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), on or around the earliest possible priority date of the ’207 patent, would have had “a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least three years of experience designing, developing, and/or testing telecommunication systems” and “familiarity with the wireless standards and well-known protocols for accessing wireless networks,” and that “[m]ore education may supplement practical experience or vice versa.” Pet. 3, 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36). In its Preliminary Response, “Patent Owner generally concurs with [Petitioner’s] description, though would propose that a POSITA only needs two years of experience . . . . [but] does not believe any difference between Patent’s Owner’s view and Petitioners’ view affects the unpatentability analysis.” Prelim. Resp. 24. We agree with Patent Owner that the difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s formulations would not affect our analysis of patentability. We adopt Petitioner’s formulation, which is supported by expert testimony and is generally consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and the prior art. See, e.g., Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Looking first at the claim language itself, Patent Owner’s construction is unduly narrow. The “for” recitations derive antecedent basis from limitation 4a. Ex. 1001, 36:44–45. Limitation 4a recites “a 4-step” procedure and “a 2-step” procedure. Thus, the claim includes one of each procedure type: “one” 4-step and “one” 2-step (i.e., single instances of each procedure). Patent Owner similarly reads the claim as requiring “one or more” of each procedure type. See Tr. 33:19–34:4. Because limitation 4a provides antecedent basis for a singular 4-step procedure and a singular 2-step procedure, this strongly suggests that the claim requires for the one (or for the single) 4-step procedure but not for all 4-step procedures, and for the one (or for the single) 2-step procedure but not for all 2-step procedures. At trial, Patent Owner’s interpretation was similar, stating, “that would read. . . as for the one or more 4-step . . . procedure and for the one or more 2-step . . . procedure.” See Tr. 33:25– 34:4 (emphasis added). In seeming contradiction, Patent Owner also stated, “I read that as being . . . all 4-step contention random access procedures . . . and all 2-step random access based procedures.” Id. (emphasis added). We note that Patent Owner does not, however, cite any legal precedent for interpreting “one or more” as requiring “all,” or provide reasoning for departing from the default claim construction principle that “one or more” includes “one.” For this reason and for reasons further discussed below, construing “for the 4-step” to mean “for all 4-step,” and “for the 2-step” to mean “for all 2-step,” would improperly import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 4 is rendered obvious over Lee1 and Lee2 (“Lee1–Lee2”).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“With these teachings in mind, we are persuaded by Petitioner that incorporating Lee2’s higher power and different ramping into Lee1’s 2-step procedure would have even further reduced the latency of Lee1’s 2-step procedure, and that this would have resulted in different power settings based on procedure type. Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–89; Reply 12–13. Patent Owner does not meaningfully dispute this point. See generally PO Resp. 37–42; Sur-reply 12–17. Instead, Patent Owner argues that Lee1’s 4-step procedure would “equally benefit” from reducing latency, and that Petitioner has not explained why a POSITA would not use the same power settings for both procedures, i.e., use Lee2’s same higher power and different ramping in Lee1’s 4-step procedure. See PO Resp. 41–42. However, Petitioner’s burden is to provide a motivation for the proposed combination—in this case, modifying Lee1’s 2-step procedure with Lee2’s higher power and lower ramping. The obviousness analysis does not require Petitioner to explain why the references would not have been combined in an alternative way not proposed by Petitioner. To the extent Patent Owner argues that Lee1 and Lee2 cannot be combined as proposed, and therefore must be combined in this alternative manner, we disagree. For example, Patent Owner does not provide evidence of teaching away or that the proposed combination is inoperable. See generally PO Resp. 37–42; Sur-reply 12–17. Furthermore, we do not see how solving any technical issues in combining Lee1 and Lee2 as proposed would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Furthermore, Petitioner explains why a POSITA would have sought to” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 10,932,207 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,932,207 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00438 · APJ Lilan Ren · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7–13, and 16–20 and all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, and we institute an inter partes review.1” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a comparable field and at least two years of experience related to 3D printing, with additional experience potentially being a substitute for a formal degree or training (and vice versa).” Prelim. Resp. 11–12. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears unopposed and consistent with the disclosures of the ’466 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). At this stage of the proceeding, neither party contends that any formal claim construction is necessary. See Pet. 6 (“Petitioner submits that no claim terms require a formal construction for purposes of evaluating the prior art and resolving issues this proceeding.”); Prelim. Resp. 12 (“For the purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner submits that the Board does not need to construe any claim terms in any particular way to conclude that the Petition is deficient and thus institution of review is not warranted.”). After reviewing the parties’ respective arguments and the evidence currently before us, however, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any claim term to resolve any controversy at this stage of the proceeding. D. Alleged Obviousness Over Loughran and Dubois (Ground 1A)” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“The record before us supports Petitioner’s contention that the combining Loughran and Dubois is no more than a “combination of familiar elements according to known methods . . . [which] does no more than yield predictable results.” Compare Pet. 12, with Prelim. Resp. 19–23 (disputing some of Petitioner’s reasons to combine without addressing Petitioner’s reasoning based on KSR); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. By contrast, Patent Owner’s contentions relating to the alleged motivation to combine teachings of Loughran and Dubois lack evidentiary support. Based on our review and consideration of the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has adequately shown for purposes of institution that there is sufficient rationale to combine as well as a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Loughran and Dubois in the manner suggested.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,569,466 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00611 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–10, 12, 13, 19, and 20 on all petition grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Douglas and Mark.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“A claim is unpatentable under § 103 “if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). When a ground in a petition is based on a combination of references, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that experience could substitute for a degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21); Prelim. Resp. 9. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar. Although we discern no difference in the outcome of this decision from choosing one over the other, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal for this decision. Only Petitioner’s proposed level is supported by testimonial evidence on the preliminary record, and it appears to be consistent with the problems addressed in the ’774 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:16–52. Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal for this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“CLAIM CONSTRUCTION B. In an IPR, we construe a patent claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This generally includes “construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term “is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent,” and “as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313, 1321. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner argues that we need to construe any claim terms explicitly. See Pet. 2–3; Prelim. Resp. 9. However, the parties’ positions depend on interpreting the claim language in a particular way, and we discuss the relevant claim language below in the context of the parties’ arguments regarding the prior art. 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))).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“At this stage, we find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive and disagree with Patent Owner. Patent Owner appears to equate a “fabrication profile” with a toolpath description, but nothing in the plain language of claim 1 supports that narrow interpretation. The ’774 patent describes a “fabrication profile” broadly and states that the profile can simply “include the dictionary [of configuration information],” or be “used to determine which machineready representation is available or suitable for a target printer.” Ex. 1001, 23:49–52. The preliminary evidence suggests that Douglas’s “operational parameters” would count as a “fabrication profile” because it is “the basis for generation of a machine-ready representation of the three-dimensional model that is executable on the target printer.” Id. at 23:37–39; see infra Section III.C.8. We also disagree that Petitioner’s argument is impermissible hindsight, because it is based on the disclosures in Douglas and Mark, and Petitioner has articulated a sufficiently persuasive reason to combine those references without referring to the ’774 patent itself. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (an obvious rationale is not improper hindsight if it “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure”). Finally, Petitioner appears to rely on Mark for providing a particular example of a fabrication profile, not to replace Douglas’s overall system in which the 3D printer can receive “operational parameters” rather than just G-code. See Pet. 8–10, 17–23; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 41 (the print queue, which stores tool instructions, may be maintained locally on printers 204 or on print servers 208); see In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[A] determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc))).” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,886,774 - Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00585 · APJ Lilan Ren · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–6, 10–19 because claim 1’s scope is ambiguous and the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the scope of claim 1 is ambiguous and that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, and we deny inter partes review.1” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“distinguishes and contrasts build material property from operational parameters. The diagnostic test passage therefore only describes a diagnostic test of the build material property but does not describe a subsequent diagnostic test to assess whether an operational parameter is suitable for the printer. Based solely on the diagnostic test passage and the prosecution history, a possible interpretation may be that the operational parameter determination in claim element 1b encompasses the diagnostic testing in claim element 1c. That is, “performing a diagnostic test to determine whether the operational parameter is suitable for the three-dimensional printer” in claim element 1c is subsumed as part of “determining an operational parameter of a fabrication process using the three-dimensional printer based upon the data, the operational parameter including at least one of a build platform temperature, a build volume temperature, an infill requirement, a rafting requirement, a support structure requirement, and a cooling requirement” in claim element 1b.” slip op. at 15
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Research Corps. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 871–72 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that claims of the later-filed application, which were not limited to a “blue noise mask,” were “not entitled to claim the benefit of their parent applications’ filing dates”); ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., 558 F.3d 1368, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that “spikeless” claims “added years later during prosecution” were not supported by the specification which “describe[d] only medical valves with spikes”); Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158–60 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding the generic shaped cup claims of the later-filed child application were not entitled to the filing date of the parent application that “disclosed only a trapezoidal cup and nothing more”). “To satisfy the written description requirement the disclosure of the prior application must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of the invention.” PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306 (emphasis omitted; alteration in original). The sufficiency of written description support is based on “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field in the relevant time frame would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of research or industry experience in 3D printing or materials used for 3D printing.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Petitioner also contends that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for a formal degree or formal training (and vice versa).” Id. (citing the same). Patent Owner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a comparable field and at least two years of experience related to 3D printing, with additional experience potentially being a substitute for a formal degree or training (and vice versa).” Prelim. Resp. 12. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears unopposed and consistent with the disclosures of the ’464 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,167,464 - PTAB · Sep 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00632 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 are obvious over Yamaguchi-727.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”).1 Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenInstituted
“We disagree. Positioning module 6 to face a “predetermined direction” is a form of preventing movement that falls within the scope of limitation 1b. Moreover, Yamaguchi-727 uses a method for preventing movement of its module 6 in its housing 20, silicone potting material, that is expressly recognized by the Specification of the ’421 patent when it states: “A common technique used to assist in fixturing the electrical sensor device 40 known within the automotive industry is to fill the internal cavity with a coating material such as a neutral silicone or the like for purposes of retaining placement position.” Ex. 1001, 13:56–60. Although the Specification also asserts that the sensor assemblies disclosed in the 421 patent “do not use or require the use of any such coating or filing agents or materials for any fixturing of the electrical sensor device 40,” id. at 13:61–64, limitation 1b merely requires that the “sensor device . . . is disposed within the internal cavity and attached therein to prevent movement of the device within the internal cavity,” id. at 30:25–27. Absent a persuasive argument to the contrary, we preliminarily conclude that Yamaguchi-727’s use of potting material to hold its module 6 in place within its housing 20 meets the requirements of limitation 1b. Both parties are encouraged to adduce intrinsic evidence relating to the meaning of limitation 1b at trial. For all the reasons set forth above, we find that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of proving the Yamaguchi-727 renders claim 1 unpatentable as obvious. 2. Dependent Claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 Petitioner identifies the portions of Yamaguchi-727 that teach the limitations introduced in dependent claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24, all of which ultimately depend from claim 1. Pet. 32–40. Patent Owner relies upon its argument that Petitioner’s showing for claim 1 is deficient as the reason why Petitioner’s challenge to dependent claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 fails. We reject this argument for the reasons stated in Part II.C.1 above. Based on our review of Petitioner’s otherwise uncontested argument and evidence cited in support, we find that Petitioner also establishes a reasonable likelihood of proving that Yamaguchi-727 renders dependent claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 unpatentable as obvious. D. Remaining Challenges” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner complies with the requirement of identifying “[h]ow the claim language is to be construed” by setting forth proposed interpretations of various claim terms in the table above.7 Both cases cited by Patent Owner relate to an issue presented by a petitioner’s alleged inconsistent handling of whether a claim term is subject to interpretation as a means-plus-function element under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Orthopediatrics Corp. v. K2M, Inc., IPR2018-01546, Paper 10 at 11 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2019); 10x Genomics, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, IPR2023- 7 Neither party has identified any claim language that might invoke interpretation as a means-plus-function limitation, and we discern no such claim language. Additionally, we do not imply that a petitioner must always propose express interpretations for specific claim language to comply with Rule 42.104(b)(3). Rather, we only note that Petitioner has, by any measure, complied by expressly proposing interpretations for identified claim language.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“We disagree. Positioning module 6 to face a “predetermined direction” is a form of preventing movement that falls within the scope of limitation 1b. Moreover, Yamaguchi-727 uses a method for preventing movement of its module 6 in its housing 20, silicone potting material, that is expressly recognized by the Specification of the ’421 patent when it states: “A common technique used to assist in fixturing the electrical sensor device 40 known within the automotive industry is to fill the internal cavity with a coating material such as a neutral silicone or the like for purposes of retaining placement position.” Ex. 1001, 13:56–60. Although the Specification also asserts that the sensor assemblies disclosed in the 421 patent “do not use or require the use of any such coating or filing agents or materials for any fixturing of the electrical sensor device 40,” id. at 13:61–64, limitation 1b merely requires that the “sensor device . . . is disposed within the internal cavity and attached therein to prevent movement of the device within the internal cavity,” id. at 30:25–27. Absent a persuasive argument to the contrary, we preliminarily conclude that Yamaguchi-727’s use of potting material to hold its module 6 in place within its housing 20 meets the requirements of limitation 1b. Both parties are encouraged to adduce intrinsic evidence relating to the meaning of limitation 1b at trial. For all the reasons set forth above, we find that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of proving the Yamaguchi-727 renders claim 1 unpatentable as obvious. 2. Dependent Claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 Petitioner identifies the portions of Yamaguchi-727 that teach the limitations introduced in dependent claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24, all of which ultimately depend from claim 1. Pet. 32–40. Patent Owner relies upon its argument that Petitioner’s showing for claim 1 is deficient as the reason why Petitioner’s challenge to dependent claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 fails. We reject this argument for the reasons stated in Part II.C.1 above. Based on our review of Petitioner’s otherwise uncontested argument and evidence cited in support, we find that Petitioner also establishes a reasonable likelihood of proving that Yamaguchi-727 renders dependent claims 2, 7–9, 11, 12, and 20–24 unpatentable as obvious. D. Remaining Challenges” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,835,421 - PTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00631 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–13, and 15–22 on all five asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’027 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims (i.e., 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–13, and 15–22) of the ’027 patent, based on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “possessed an undergraduate degree in chemistry, polymers, materials science, chemical engineering (or related field) and one to two years of experience with constructing and manufacturing tires, tire patches, tire decals/stickers and/or the like.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 6–11). According to Petitioner, “Additional education could compensate for less practical experience. Conversely, additional practical experience could compensate for less education.” Id. Patent Owner does not provide an alternate definition, but, “Patent Owner does not acquiesce to, and reserves the right to address, [Petitioner’s] definition of a POSA.” Prelim. Resp. 6 n.6. Petitioner’s proposed definition appears to be consistent with the disclosure of the ’027 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. 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)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s contentions that these disclosures indicate that Wilson’s patch would not meet the construction of “barrier material composition.” None of these disclosures even suggests that the base of Wilson’s patch is rigid as Patent Owner suggests. To begin with, the fact that the housing is “more rigid” provides no information about the absolute rigidness of the patch. See Ex. 1009, 9:16–21. As for the disclosure that the patch is contoured (id. at 3:35–67), Patent Owner provides only attorney argument to support its contention that the contour demonstrates that Wilson’s patch must be so rigid that it cannot be meet the claim limitation. In contrast, Petitioner demonstrates that Wilson discloses using the exact same materials described in the challenged patent (see Ex. 1001, 6:33–58 (noting “[e]lastomeric materials useful for forming the intermediate layer 24 include but are not limited to gum rubber, vulcanized natural rubber SBR . . . or comparable materials”); Ex. 1009, 3:49–55 (noting the patch may be constructed from natural rubber (NR), a preferred mixture of chlorobutyl rubber and natural rubber (CR/NR), or a preferred mixture of SBR and natural rubber (SBR/NR)), and provides detailed testimony from its expert to support its contentions (see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114–119). On the current record, we find Petitioner’s reasoning and evidence to be persuasive, and find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Willson discloses or teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,124,027 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00557 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 11, 12, and 15–21 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rogers and obvious over Rogers.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially the same, are both supported by testimonial evidence, and appear to be consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions addressed in the ’067 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–53. Although Patent Owner’s proposed level is more specific about the nature of the practical or industry experience, neither party has argued that the differences between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“inside” it, the evidence does not support Patent Owner’s position. First, the plain language of independent claim 1 states that the proxy object “compris[es]” the one or more haptic output devices. Ex. 1001, 10:42–43. This is broader than the “within” language of the non-entered amendment. See Ex. 1002, 258. Not only does the evidence fail to show clear disclaimer (see United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 782–83 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), the adoption of broader “comprising” language shows an intent for the claims not to be limited to systems in which the proxy object contains haptic output devices “inside” it. We also do not agree with Patent Owner that the applicant’s attempts during prosecution to distinguish Gonzales are a clear disclaimer of claim scope. The applicant argued that Gonzales’s AR glove, which contained haptic output actuators in it (see, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 80–82, Fig. 3B), was not a “proxy object” as recited in the claims because “the virtual objects and/or visible alterations to the vehicle [the user is sitting in while wearing the 6 Once again, Patent Owner mistakenly references Exhibit 2001. glove] are not overlaid on the AR glove . . . [a]nd the physical portions of the vehicle were visible alterations are overlaid do not include any feedback devices.” Ex. 1002, 287. Thus, the issue raised during prosecution was not whether the AR glove comprised haptic output devices—which it clearly did even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction—but whether the AR glove had modified visual effects displayed on it as per limitation 1D3. slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the above reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a proxy object comprising one or more haptic output devices” as meaning “a physical object that acts as a proxy for a virtual object and that itself contains inside a haptic output device, e.g., an actuator.” PO Resp. 10. Instead, we conclude that no explicit construction is necessary beyond the ordinary and customary meaning.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Alternatively, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had used both the camera data and the inertial sensor data in determining the “reloading” haptic effect. Pet. 77; Pet. Reply 19–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 318; Tr. 31:3–10. This is evident in light of Rogers’s disclosures (1) that both sets of data are used to determine the pointing direction of interface object 104 in at least some contexts (Ex. 1010 ¶ 106); and (2) that the “reloading” haptic effect is based on the pointing direction (Ex. 1010 ¶ 105). See Intel Corp., v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[If] there’s a known technique to address a known problem using prior art elements according to their established functions, then there is a motivation to combine.” (internal quotation omitted)). Thus, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Rogers discloses limitation 1D2, and alternatively that limitation 1D2 would have been obvious based on Rogers’s disclosures.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,665,067 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,665,067 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00508 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18, 21–24, and 26–29 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rosenberg; the Board did not reach the alternative Brock grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry experience or graduate-level academic experience with human-computer interaction.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40–45). This level of skill appears reasonable in view of the disclosures in the ’546 patent and asserted prior art. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that we need not construe any claim terms explicitly because “the Petition’s prior art discloses each element of the challenged claims under any plausible construction.” Pet. 8. We agree with Petitioner that, for this Decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. 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))). To the extent that we discuss specific claim language, we do so below in the context of the prior art. See, e.g., infra Section III.C.2(e).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). When a ground in a petition is based on a combination of references, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We base our obviousness inquiry on factual considerations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) any objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness that may be in evidence.4 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.” slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 9,116,546 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,116,546 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00556 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Astala and Shahoian; claims 1, 6–9, 13, 14, and 18 also over Keely and Kolmykov-Zotov; claims 2–5, 10–12, and 15–17 also over those references with Shahoian.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“As we explained in the Institution Decision, we have reviewed the Board’s prior decision in IPR2016-01777 and we disagree with Valve that the previous Board panel actually construed the “determining a press” limitation. See Dec. on Inst. 9–10. The previous Board panel was merely making the point that the three conditions in the “determining a press” limitation had to be related in some way, and pointed to Figure 3 of the ’507 patent as an example of that relationship. IPR2016-01777, Paper 7 at 14–15 (Ex. 1023) (explaining that the interval in Figure 3 is “an integral part of the ‘determining a press imitation’”). The prior Board decision in IPR2016-01777 did not contain a claim construction because, in its Decision on Rehearing, the previous Board panel stated that it “did not expressly construe the ‘determining a press limitation’ or interpret[] the limitation to require the first two conditions recited in the limitation to be maintained for the duration of the first interval.” Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2016- 01777, Paper 9 at 3 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2017) (Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing). Thus, the prior Board decision outcome was not reliant on any particular claim interpretation or characterization of Figure 3; instead, it faulted the petitioner in that case for not considering the three conditions as a whole in the manner required by the claims. Id. at 3–4 (explaining that the petitioner needed to show the “‘first interval has elapsed’ condition as a part of the ‘determining a press limitation’” (emphasis added)). Notwithstanding, and for the sake of clarity, to the extent the prior Board decision in IPR2016-01777 characterized Figure 3 of the ’507 patent to require the pressure and change in pressure conditions to be met during the entire interval, we agree with Valve that such a reading of Figure 3 is incorrect. As Valve points out in its analysis, with which we agree, the flowchart in Figure 3 allows for both the pressure and change in pressure conditions to be met during some but not all of the entire time interval in certain circumstances. Pet. 12–14.3 In summary, we agree with Valve that the three conditions of the “determining a press” limitation are independent insofar as satisfaction of one condition is not predicated on the satisfaction of another condition. In our view, however, that point is merely reciting what the claim already requires—namely, that “determining a press” is defined as the satisfaction of the three conditions. Nothing more is required. Thus, we do not see the need to construe independent claim 1 beyond its plain language.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Mr. Ward, Valve argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . on November 26, 2003 would have had a Bachelors’ degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry or graduate level experience with software engineering, haptics programming, and/or human-computer interaction, including experience with user-interfaces and applications involving touchscreens, touchpads, and related technologies. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–51). Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Dec. on Inst. 8. That is, we adopt Valve’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because (1) it is consistent with the ’507 patent and the asserted prior art; and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Mr. Ward. We apply this assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Turning to rationale to combine, Valve contends that, because Shahoian recognizes that “[o]ne problem with existing touchpads is that there is no haptic feedback provided to the user” to “assist and inform the user” when interpreting gestures, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Astala’s input touch screen 70 was ready for the improvement that Shahoian provides—namely, “haptic feedback associated with touchpad/touchscreen input gestures.” Pet. 17–18 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 6) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 158–160). Valve argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Shahoian’s haptic feedback into Astala’s input touch screen 70 would have introduced certain benefits taught by Shahoian, including, but not limited to, using haptic feedback to inform users of touchpad gestures by “assist[ing] users in noisy environments . . . where sound may not be easily heard by the user.” Id. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 178) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 187, 188, 193; Ex. 1003 ¶ 161). Valve also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Shahoian’s pressure-sensing components in Astala’s input touch screen 70 because, among other reasons, using actual pressure sensors in a touchpad would have provided more accurate determinations of user input. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 41; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 164–166). Valve asserts there was a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because it involves “us[ing] Shahoian’s haptic feedback and pressure sensors for their intended use.” Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 180, 181). In addition, Valve asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected Shahoian’s haptic feedback and pressure sensors to succeed in Astala because “Shahoian demonstrates that algorithms for haptic feedback were known and predictable.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 182). In summary, upon reviewing Valve’s unrebutted arguments and evidence explaining how the combined teachings of Astala and Shahoian account for all the limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 14, we agree with and adopt Valve’s analysis. See Pet. 17–31, 38–41. Accordingly, Valve has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of these independent claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Astala and Shahoian.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,749,507 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,749,507
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.