• DISH Network Corp. / DISH Network LLC et al. v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00391 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Williams and Pugel would have motivated a skilled artisan to make the claimed combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “4. Summary We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Williams and Pugel to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that at least one claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Williams and Pugel.” slip op. at 27

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner contends that the outcome of this proceeding is determined by the level of ordinary skill in the art. We apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art except that we delete the qualifier “at least” which renders the level of skill ambiguous and may encompass levels of skill beyond ordinary. We consider Petitioner’s proposed level of skill to be consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’576 patent and the prior art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We also consider the proposed level of skill to be reflective of the education and experience a person of ordinary skill would have had.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningOther

    “Given that no claim terms are in controversy, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary. 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))). Accordingly, we construe the claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claims 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).” slip op. at 12

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

    “digitization earlier in Williams’s system by locating an ADC at its front end. However, as Pugel shows, it is not simply a matter of moving an ADC earlier in the processing, because the ADC requires Pugel’s analog processing section 110 including AGC 112 (optional), bandpass filter 114, amplifier 116, and AGC 118. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 16–18. Petitioner does not adequately address the fact that the ADC requires this pre-processing section to filter out noise over the entire broadband signal, which adds complexity and expense to the system, in determining whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references at the time of the invention. See Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“a reasonable fact finder could have found these tradeoffs to yield an unappetizing combination); Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Board weighed competing evidence regarding the relevant tradeoffs and concluded that the combination would negate a key benefit of one of the references which would have outweighed any reason to combine). We also agree with Patent Owner that substituting digital components for analog ones is not as straightforward as Petitioner alleges. Prelim. Resp. 48; Pet. 41. According to Petitioner, Williams performs the tuning (i.e., channel selection), frequency translating, and signal combining in the analog domain. Petitioner contends that tuning and frequency translating could be performed in the digital domain using digital equivalents of Williams’s analog components. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–119). However, Petitioner does not identify adequately what these digital equivalents are and whether they were available at the time of the ’576 patent. Petitioner further contends that signal combining could be accomplished by converting signals to analog before summing at Williams’s summer 68, or by summing the signals in the digital domain and converting the output of summer 68 to analog. Pet. 41. Petitioner does not address the complexity or costs associated with additional DACs or a digital combiner in its proposed combination and whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references in light of these disadvantages. And Patent Owner rightly notes that Pugel does not disclose a digital combiner.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,130,576
• Apple Inc. v. Logantree, LPNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00037 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30–32, 36, 39–42, 45–51, 61–65, 144, and 147 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, stating it was “consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art.” Dec. Inst. 8. In proposing a different level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain why its proposed skill level is more appropriate.12 PO Resp. 16. In addition, the parties’ proposed definitions are materially similar. 12 Petitioner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Reply. definition, although our conclusions with respect to obviousness would be the same if we were to apply Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We determine that we need not expressly construe “movement sensor” to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. 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, 200 F.3d at 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To the extent the parties raise claim construction issues in addressing the asserted grounds, we address such issues below.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Also, the Petition merely states that “Ono supports instances where the user stops the step-counting mode operation using switch S2 after the processor detects that” the target distance or the target number of steps has been reached and notifies the user by generating an alarm sound. Pet. 53 (emphasis added). In this case, supporting the notion of the user stopping the step-counting mode operation in response to the alarm is not the same as teaching or suggesting the notion to one of ordinary skill in the art. The possibility that a user could stop the step-counting operation in response the alarm is insufficient to render claims 1 and 20 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”). Petitioner’s reliance on the Hewlett-Packard and Unwired Planet cases (Pet. 56) is unavailing, as the facts in those cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present proceeding. Namely, both of those cases involved prior art references that disclosed operations that satisfied a claimed feature some, but not all, of the time. Hewlett-Packard, 340 F.3d at 1326; Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1002. Here, Ono does not disclose the user stopping the step-counting mode operation in response to the alarm even some of the time. In view of the above, we determine, based on the full record, that the combination of Ono and Hutchings does not disclose limitations [1f] or [20f]. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that independent claims 1 and 20 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono and Hutchings.” slip op. at 28

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We have determined incorporated Grounds 1, 2, 3A, 3B, and 4, as well as Ground 5A, deficient for the reasons discussed above. Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner contends that any of these combinations somehow adds something to supplement or strengthen the patentability analysis of the incorporated grounds, we note that neither the Petition nor Dr. Kenny provides sufficient particularity to support such a position. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). Accordingly, we are not persuaded on the complete record before us that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, Conlan, Kaufman, and Hickman (Ground 5B); (2) claims 1–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 31, 36, 39–42, 45–47, 49, and 61–65 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, and Conlan (Ground 6A); (3) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, Conlan, and Hickman (Ground 6B); (4) claims 1, 3–5, 8–11, 20, 25, 30, 36, 39–42, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Amano, and Kaufman (Ground 7); (5) claims 1–5, 8, 10, 20, 25, 30, 31, 39, 41, 42, 45–47, 49, 61–65, 144, and 147 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Conlan, and Kaufman (Ground 8A); and (6) claims 48, 50, and 51 are unpatentable over the combination of Ono, Hutchings, Conlan, Kaufman, and Hickman (Ground 8B).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 6,059,576 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,059,576
• Rideco Inc. v. Via Transportation, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 17, 2023 · IPR2022-00740 · APJ Michael L Woods · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–13, 15, and 17–20 unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds, chiefly because Lambert did not teach system-selected virtual bus stops.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill. We find that Petitioner’s level of skill is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’411 patent and the prior art. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that the relevant field of art is not limited to the backend artificial intelligence components in a ride-sharing system, as Patent Owner contends. See Pet. Reply 6–7; see also PO Resp. 20–23. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertions that the ’411 patent is directed towards a complex artificial intelligence system far beyond the scope of traditional navigation systems. See PO Resp. 20–23. Neither Patent Owner nor its expert, Dr. Jacquillat, cites to the patent to explain why the art of the ’411 patent is limited to artificial intelligence components in determining the relevant skill in the art. See id.; see also Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 41–51. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the ’411 patent makes no reference to “artificial intelligence” directly, and Patent Owner instead relies upon declarant testimony to argue that the patent is directed towards an advancement in artificial intelligence. PO Sur-reply 11. Patent Owner claims that “programming a computer to make decisions in the place of humans is a form of artificial intelligence.” Id. Regardless, we need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art for a patent that never even uses the term. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan with an understanding of computer programming and navigation systems, as well as two to four years of experience in location-based systems, would understand the “computer-implemented transportation system” of the ’411 patent. In summary, we find that the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person having (i) a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field[;] (ii) a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems; and (iii) two to four years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces and databases.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37).” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner

    “Additionally, we find that Mr. Andrews’s background would qualify him as a person of ordinary skill in the art even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Under Patent Owner’s proposal, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “degree in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics, or a related field with at least two years of experience with optimization modeling, large scale optimization algorithms, or artificial intelligence solutions in the context of ride-sharing systems.” PO Resp. 30 (emphasis added). The record demonstrates that Mr. Andrews meets these qualifications. Mr. Andrews possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master of Science degree in Electronic Engineering, which we find to be in a “related field.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 6. Additionally, Mr. Andrews has significantly more than two years of experience in the fields Patent Owner suggests are relevant as evidenced by, for example, Mr. Andrews’s testimony that he has experience in “locationbased systems,” and “work[ing] in database dispatch systems for fleet management.” Ex. 2023, 44:2–9; 44:15–19. This experience demonstrates that Mr. Andrews had at least two years of experience in “optimization modeling.” The parties agree, however, that Mr. Andrews does not have experience working with ride-sharing systems. Nevertheless, Patent Owner’s definition includes artisans who lack that particular experience. Specifically, Patent Owner’s definition provides that: A person with an advanced degree (a master’s or Ph.D.) in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics or a related field and a focus on data science, artificial intelligence or operations research would also have been an ordinary artisan in the field of the ’411 patent even if that person lacked two years of specific experience with ride-sharing systems. PO Resp. 20 (emphases added). In other words, even if the first prong of Patent Owner’s definition requires the expert’s experience to be “in the context of ride-sharing systems,” Mr. Andrews would nevertheless satisfy the qualifications of a POSITA under the second prong, which does not require experience with “ride-sharing systems.” See id. This Decision does not turn on the differences between the parties’ characterization of a skilled artisan.” slip op. at 15

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

    “The parties are in agreement. Despite the parties’ briefing on this term, the parties do not dispute the construction of “virtual bus stops.” Absent any controversy, we adopt the parties agreed-upon construction of the term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Specifically, we adopt the parties’ construction that “virtual bus stops” means “pickup and dropoff locations selected by the ride-sharing system itself.” Compare PO Resp. 23, with Pet. Reply 4. We further adopt the parties’ construction that the system need not use artificial intelligence—whatever that may mean—to select the virtual bus stops. Compare PO Sur-reply 5, with Pet. Reply 4; see also supra § III.A (“[W]e need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art pertaining to a patent that never even uses the term.”).” slip op. at 18

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

    “performs actions (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 2:49–52; 2:63–67, 3:19–20, 3:34–35), we decline to infer from Lambert’s single sentence (id. at 4:17–23) that Lambert’s server is also programmed to perform the step of “dynamically selecting pickup and dropoff locations” (i.e., virtual bus stops). In other words, if Lambert’s server was programmed to select pickup and dropoff locations, as Petitioner would have us believe, we find that Lambert’s disclosure would have stated so. It does not.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 10,197,411 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,197,411
• DISH Network Corporation / DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v. Entropic Communications, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 11, 2023 · IPR2023-00392 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims: claims 9–12 lacked a sufficient obviousness showing, and claims 1–8 and 13–19 were disclaimed.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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 Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had (i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and three or more years of experience working in television signal processing and satellite communications; (ii) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in television signal processing and satellite communications; or (iii) a doctoral degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in television signal processing and satellite communications. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 33–34). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner contends that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 13 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13). Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its Preliminary Response. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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 9

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

    “Thus, rather than filling a purported gap in Carnero’s disclosure, Petitioner’s proposed combination essentially requires replacing Carnero’s input device 16 with Fisk’s server 56. But neither the Petition nor Dr. Schonfeld explains sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use server 56 instead of input unit 16 to input data into the microprocessors of converters 4. See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 119. More importantly, setting aside the problem of replacing input unit 16 for the sake of argument, we disagree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use server 56 to input that frequency data into signal processing unit 400 “based on requests for programs it receives from the LCUs,” as argued by Petitioner. See Pet. 38 (emphasis added). Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that the requests for programs generated by Fisk’s LCUs are intended to select channels from a predetermined lineup of channels and are not disclosed as being able to change the channels in the predetermined lineup, such that server 56 “can only distribute the decoded programs it is fed.” See Prelim. Resp. 20–21. By way of example, Patent Owner contends that Figure 6 of Fisk depicts server 56 as having three pre-programmed satellite decoders (SAT1, SAT2, and SAT3) that” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,542,715
• Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00412 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable because the Dua, GlobalPlatform, and Philips combination did not establish the claimed emulator personalization.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On the full record before us, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art should have some level of experience relating to mobile payment technology. For example, the title of the ’787 patent, “Method and Apparatus for Conducting E-commerce and M-commerce,” provides a strong indication that mobile payments are a key aspect of the disclosed invention. See Ex. 1001, code (54). The ’787 patent describes its technical field as: “The present invention is generally related to commerce over networks. Particularly, the present invention is related to electronic purses that can be advantageously used in portable devices configured for both electronic commerce (a.k.a., e-commerce) and mobile commerce (a.k.a., m-commerce),” which reinforces that mobile payment technology is a key aspect. See id. at 1:17–21. In addition, we credit Mr. Smith’s uncontroverted testimony that mobile payment experience is required, which we find persuasive and supported by evidence. See Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 4–10. On the other hand, we agree with Patent Owner that network security is an important aspect of the ’787 patent’s invention. But to the extent that Patent Owner is asserting that mobile payment technology and computer or network security are distinct concepts such that the proper level of ordinary skill would include experience in one or the other but not both, we disagree. Rather, we view the ’787 patent as relating to methods and apparatuses for 1:17–21) and describing security as being an aspect of the commerce (see id. at code (57) (“[A] mechanism is provided to enable a portable device to conduct transactions over an open network with a payment server without compromising security.”), 2:16–19 (“During a transaction, the security keys are used to establish a secured channel between an embedded e-purse and an SAM (Security Authentication Module) or backend server.”)). For the above reasons, we find Petitioner’s contentions on this issue more persuasive on the full record before us. In order to avoid any doubt that we consider computer or network security to be an element of mobile payment technology, we determine for the purposes of this Decision that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering or an equivalent, and one year of professional experience relating to mobile payment technology, including computer or network security. In addition, a lack of professional experience could be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art should have some level of experience relating to mobile payment technology. For example, the title of the ’787 patent, “Method and Apparatus for Conducting E-commerce and M-commerce,” provides a strong indication that mobile payments are a key aspect of the disclosed invention. See Ex. 1001, code (54). The ’787 patent describes its technical field as: “The present invention is generally related to commerce over networks. Particularly, the present invention is related to electronic purses that can be advantageously used in portable devices configured for both electronic commerce (a.k.a., e-commerce) and mobile commerce (a.k.a., m-commerce),” which reinforces that mobile payment technology is a key aspect. See id. at 1:17–21. In addition, we credit Mr. Smith’s uncontroverted testimony that mobile payment experience is required, which we find persuasive and supported by evidence. See Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 4–10. On the other hand, we agree with Patent Owner that network security is an important aspect of the ’787 patent’s invention. But to the extent that Patent Owner is asserting that mobile payment technology and computer or network security are distinct concepts such that the proper level of ordinary skill would include experience in one or the other but not both, we disagree. Rather, we view the ’787 patent as relating to methods and apparatuses for 1:17–21) and describing security as being an aspect of the commerce (see id. at code (57) (“[A] mechanism is provided to enable a portable device to conduct transactions over an open network with a payment server without compromising security.”), 2:16–19 (“During a transaction, the security keys are used to establish a secured channel between an embedded e-purse and an SAM (Security Authentication Module) or backend server.”)). For the above reasons, we find Petitioner’s contentions on this issue more persuasive on the full record before us. In order to avoid any doubt that we consider computer or network security to be an element of mobile payment technology, we determine for the purposes of this Decision that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering or an equivalent, and one year of professional experience relating to mobile payment technology, including computer or network security. In addition, a lack of professional experience could be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that Mr. Gomez’s testimony should be given little to no weight, Patent Owner argues that Mr. Gomez is well qualified under both proposed levels of ordinary skill. Sur-reply 4–5. During the hearing, Petitioner modified its position somewhat, arguing that Mr. Gomez’s “testimony should be accorded little to no weight, particularly where he weighs in on issues specific to financial transactions and smart cards.” Tr. 8:15–18 (emphasis added). Petitioner stated further that “[w]e’re simply asking the Board to take into the account each individual expert’s background knowledge on a per issue basis.” Id. at 59:26–60:2. Based on the full record, we disagree that all of Mr. Gomez’s testimony” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner contends that all claim terms, except “emulator” and “midlet,” should have their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 12. As to the claim terms “emulator” and “midlet,” Petitioner contends that the ’787 patent expressly defines those terms “so those definitions are controlling.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:47–50, 5:20–22). Patent Owner argues that “claim construction is not required to resolve any issues” in this proceeding. PO Resp. 9. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim term to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also 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” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

  Patent outcomesUS 9,189,787 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,189,787
• Hunter’S Manufacturing Company, Inc. D/B/A Tenpoint Crossbow Technologies v. Ravin Crossbows, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2023 · IPR2023-00407 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claim 1 on all asserted grounds because Grounds 7 and 8 met the reasonable-likelihood threshold.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_dis trict_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf (“Interim Procedure”). The Interim Procedure explains that “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Interim Procedure 3 (internal footnote omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020- 01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A) (“Sotera”)). The Interim Procedure explains that such a Sotera stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB . . . [and] allows the PTAB to review grounds that the parallel district court litigation will not resolve.” Id. at 7–8. In this proceeding, Petitioner offers a stipulation employing language nearly identical to that prescribed in the Interim Procedure: “Petitioner hereby stipulates that it will not pursue in the parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in this Petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised as to claim 1 in this Petition.” Pet. 6–7.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Claim Interpretation In an inter partes review, we construe claims using the same standard applied in a district court. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “’015 Patent pertains “would be a technical person who has at least some experience working in the field of archery, reviewing crossbows or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows, and is generally familiar with prior art crossbows” and “would likely have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or, alternatively, would have several years of experience in the field of archery or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 17). Patent Owner states: “Solely for purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSA’).” Prelim. Resp. 2. For the purposes of the present Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art pertinent to the ’015 Patent. E.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The Federal Circuit has explained that “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden, Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner relies upon a portion of KSR in which the Supreme Court stated: When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Yet, in the analysis of Ground 2, Petitioner does not address the predicate factual determinations that the Supreme Court identifies — e.g., that there would have been “a design need or market pressure,” that there were “identified” and “predictable” solutions. Id. Therefore, based upon the present record, and for the purposes of the present Decision, Petitioner does not provide a sufficient reason for modifying Stanziale ’302, in order satisfy the identified limitation of claim 1. F.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,354,015
• Rideco Inc. v. Via Transportation, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00286 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to teach or render obvious system-selected virtual bus stops and a pair of associated stops.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “2. Discussion We have considered the parties’ arguments and evidence of record, and we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill because it is consistent with the problems identified and solutions provided in the ’824 patent and the prior art. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that the relevant field of art is not limited to backend artificial intelligence components in a ride-sharing system as Patent Owner contends. See Pet. Reply 10–11; see also PO Resp. 31–32. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertions that the ’824 patent is directed towards a complex artificial intelligence system far beyond the scope of traditional navigation systems. See PO Resp. 31–32. Neither Patent Owner nor its expert, Dr. Jacquillat, cites to the patent in determining the relevant skill in the art to explain why the art of the ’824 patent is limited to artificial intelligence components. See id.; Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 41–51. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the ’824 patent makes no reference to “artificial intelligence” directly, and Patent Owner instead relies upon declarant testimony to argue that the patent is directed towards an advancement in artificial intelligence. PO Sur-reply 11. Patent Owner claims, without support, that “programming a computer to make decisions in the place of humans is a form of artificial intelligence.” Id. Regardless, we need not determine the precise definition of artificial intelligence to determine the relevant skill in the art pertaining to a patent that never uses the term. We agree with Petitioner that an artisan with an understanding of computer programming and navigation systems as well as two to four years of experience in location-based systems would understand the “computer-implemented transportation system” of the ’824 patent. In summary, we find that the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art “would have been a person having (i) a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field[;] (ii) a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems; and (iii) two to four years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces and databases.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Having addressed the relevant skill in the art, we address Patent Owner’s contention that Mr. Andrews “is not qualified to offer opinions concerning the artificial intelligence components of a ride-sharing system that are at issue in the ’824 patent.” PO Resp. 37. As discussed previously, we disagree with Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art, and have adopted Petitioner’s position. Patent Owner does not offer an opinion as to whether Mr. Andrews would be qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art under Petitioner’s definition. The record reflects that Mr. Andrews possessed an advanced degree in electronic engineering, had a working knowledge of computer programming and navigation systems, and had more than two years of experience with location-based systems, user interfaces, and databases at the time of the ’824 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4–19; Ex. 1009. Therefore, we find that Mr. Andrews is qualified to offer opinions as a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’824 patent under the relevant definition. Additionally, we find that Mr. Andrews’s background would qualify him as a person of ordinary skill in the art even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Under Patent Owner’s proposal, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “degree in computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, applied mathematics, or a related field with at least two years of experience with optimization modeling, large scale optimization algorithms, or artificial intelligence solutions in the context of ride-sharing systems.” PO Resp. 30 (emphasis added). The record demonstrates that Mr. Andrews meets these qualifications. Mr. Andrews possesses a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master of Science degree in Electronic Engineering, which we find to be in a “related field.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 6. Additionally, Mr. Andrews has significantly more than two years of experience in the fields Patent Owner suggests are relevant as evidenced by, for example, Mr. Andrews testimony that he has experience in “location-based systems,” and “work[ing] in database dispatch systems for fleet management.” Ex. 2023, 44:2–9; 44:15–19. Furthermore, given Mr. Andrews’s advanced degree, Patent Owner’s definition would allow Mr. Andrews to have less than two years of experience in the pertinent fields. PO Resp. 30; Ex. 1003 ¶ 6.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededOther

    “Under these circumstances, where the parties now agree that the ordinary meaning should apply to “virtual bus stops” and the district court adopted the same approach, we see no reason to depart from applying the ordinary meaning in this proceeding. We therefore apply the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by the parties, where “virtual bus stops” means “pickup and dropoff locations selected by the ride-sharing system itself.” As to the construction of dependent claim 8, we agree with Patent Owner that we need not formally construe the term to resolve the issues before us. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). As to Petitioner’s remaining arguments, we do not read artificial intelligence or other limitations into the claims as Petitioner warns against, and Petitioner does not argue for any specific construction in relation to these arguments that would require us to resolve a specific claim construction dispute. See Pet. Reply 4–10.” slip op. at 16

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1004, 4:17–23. The Petition does not cite to any declarant support, additional prior art, other embodiments in Lambert, or any obviousness analysis when addressing “virtual bus stops.” See Pet. 25. Although for later aspects of claim 1 the Petition relies on Poykko and an obviousness analysis when arguing that it would have been obvious to configure Lambert’s server to operate in a certain way (e.g., to access memory that includes a database of locations as taught by Poykko), the Petition does not rely on such an analysis when first addressing “virtual bus stops” alone. See id. The combination of Lambert’s statement above with Poykko and other aspects of Lambert, potentially with allegedly obvious modifications of Lambert, may serve as the basis of Petitioner’s arguments for these later limitations involving “virtual bus stops,” but these later allegations do not reach back and redefine Petitioner’s more limited argument with respect to “virtual bus stops” in isolation.8 To the extent Petitioner argues in its Reply that a combination of Lambert and Poykko or other obviousness arguments 8 In our Institution Decision, we noted that Patent Owner, at that stage of the proceeding, failed to properly address Petitioner’s proposed combination of Lambert and Poykko for various “virtual bus stop” limitations. Inst. Dec. 22–23. That said, we do not view the Petition’s arguments and evidence as to “virtual bus stops” limitation in isolation, prior to addressing the “memory” limitation and adding Poykko and obviousness to the analysis, as relying on a combination of Lambert and Poykko or obviousness. See Pet. 25. satisfy the “virtual bus stops” limitation, we agree with Patent Owner that this introduces an improper new theory in the Reply. See PO Sur-reply 20– 22.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 9,816,824 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,816,824
• Lightricks Ltd. v. Plotagraph, Inc. And Sascha ConnellyInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00152 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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 Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 42). Patent Owner proposes claim constructions for “set of pixels,” “pixels that lie along a link/length of pathway between the starting point and the ending point,” and “in a loop.” Prelim. Resp. 17–28. On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “First, the disclosure of AEM that Petitioner relies on for teaching selecting certain pixels to be transparent or nontransparent pertains to “compositing,” i.e., creating a composite image from multiple images. Ex. 1003, 315–16. AEM states specifically: “To create a composite from multiple images, you can make parts of one or more of the images transparent so that other images can show through.” Id. at 315. Thus, each pixel in the composite image is either transparent or nontransparent such that every pixel is “selected” under Petitioner’s usage of the term “selecting.” The possibility that some of these pixels, in theory, could extend along a non-linear motion path of a Deform pin is mere happenstance—we are not directed to any disclosure in AEM of actually selecting a set of pixels (either transparent or nontransparent) that extend along a non-linear motion path. See In re Facebook, Inc., 743 F. App’x. 998, 1001–02 (Fed Cir. 2018) (deciding that an example in a prior art reference showing that it is possible for image elements to be contiguous is not sufficient to teach a claim limitation that requires contiguity). We are not persuaded on the record before us that AEM’s disclosure of designating pixels as transparent or nontransparent satisfies selecting a first set of pixels extending along a nonlinear pathway. Second, Petitioner’s argument relies on AEM teaching that “AECS6 necessarily allows a user . . . to select any or all pixels of the layer to be nontransparent and thus included in the layer’s mesh to be moved and animated.” Pet. 21. We disagree, however, that AEM discloses selecting pixels to be nontransparent and including these pixels in a mesh to be moved and animated. That AECS6 arguably allows selected nontransparent pixels to be included in a mesh is not sufficient to establish that AEM discloses doing so. Petitioner contends that AECS6 and the screenshots of AECS6 created by Dr. Greenspun establish the background knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art but does not explain adequately why AECS6’s alleged capability would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to understand AEM to teach selecting pixels of a layer to be nontransparent and including the selected pixels in the layer’s mesh. See Pet. 17 n.6 (quoting Qualcomm, 24 F.4th at 1376). Again, any pixels selected to be nontransparent being included in a mesh is mere happenstance.” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,558,342
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 25, 2023 · IPR2022-00101 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 11, 12, and 14 were not shown unpatentable: the asserted obviousness combinations failed to establish required LED voltage matching or a clear, workable combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We are persuaded that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’583 patent and prior art of record. We agree that Petitioner’s proposal is overbroad in that it encompasses artisans without LED circuit design experience (“and two or more years of experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design . . .” (emphasis added)). Patent Owner’s definition, in contrast, requires “two or more years of experience with LED devices and related LED circuit design.” We therefore adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill, but we note that the outcome here would not have changed had we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill.” slip op. at 7

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

    “preliminarily agreed with Patent Owner that “substrate” may mean “a surface where ‘LEDs, capacitors and/or resistors are formed or mounted.’” Pet. 7; Dec. 19 (quoting Prelim. Resp. 22). We instructed the parties to address the meaning of “substrate” more fully at trial. Dec. 19–20 n.13. Post-institution, the parties propose the following competing constructions for the term “substrate”:” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “(2) Our analysis We agree with Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s plain reading of limitation 1(c) is correct, and under this reading, the combination of Shackle and Birrell fails to disclose or suggest limitation 1(c). Limitation 1(c) states in part: “at least one LED circuit having any number of LEDs . . . needed to approximately match the forward voltage drop of a first input voltage to the LED driver.” Ex. 1001, 27:22–25 (emphasis added). We have omitted the language “connected in series or series parallel” to highlight the grammatical relationship between the noun phrase “any number of LEDs” and the verb phrase “needed to approximately match.” The plain reading of this limitation is that the at least one LED circuit has any number of LEDs needed to approximately match the forward voltage drop of the LED driver input. Petitioner’s reading, that “the at least one LED circuit,” rather than “any number of LEDs,” must approximately match the forward voltage drop of the LED driver input, is strained and not grammatically plausible. See Reply 1–3. Petitioner does not assert there is an express disclaimer or disavowal in the specification that supports its position; Petitioner instead relies on examples disclosed in the specification to support its faulty interpretation of limitation 1(c). See Reply 2–3. These arguments are unpersuasive. It is axiomatic that we must not “limit[] the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Not only that, but Petitioner’s citations to the specification better support Patent Owner’s position. In Petitioner’s view, the specification requires other non- LED components to be combined with one or more LEDs to “appropriately match the voltage.” Reply 2. The main example Petitioner relies on describes 38 LEDs having a total voltage drop of 114 V in a circuit with a bridge rectifier having a 6 V voltage drop. Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:64–17:7). Yet the 114 V voltage drop of the LEDs alone “approximately matches” the input voltage of 120 V, without the contribution of the bridge rectifier (6 V). Id. Indeed, 114 V out of 120 V is a 95% match. Thus, this example supports Patent Owner’s view that it is the voltage drop of the LEDs themselves, not the LED circuit as a whole, that must approximately match the LED driver input. See Sur-reply 6–7.” slip op. at 16

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

    “combination. The first is that the proposed combination is not at all clear. Although Petitioner need not propose a bodily incorporation of different embodiments, Petitioner must provide a “reasoned analysis” explaining what the combination is. See DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We must be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.”) (citation omitted). But the Petition never explains how or where Piepgras’s glass substrate would be combined with Piepgras’s alleged flexible substrate, the rope light of Figure 31. At most, Petitioner suggests incorporating the illumination device 500 of Figure 42 in the rope light of Figure 31. Pet. 48 (“Piepgras provides for configurations where a reflective platform (reflective substrate) mounts lighting system 500 in a manner applicable generally to the inventions of Piepgras . . ., and thus including the rope lighting application discussed above.”). As for the glass substrate, Petitioner merely states that “a POSITA would have found it predictable to configure the Shackle-Piepgras device to implement a flexible substrate mounted to the glass substrate, wherein at least one of the plurality of LED packages is mounted to the flexible substrate.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 150). This vague statement just parrots the claim language and does not explain anything about how the glass substrate would be included in the combination.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,750,583 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,750,583
• Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 24, 2023 · IPR2022-01415 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10, 13, or 14 were unpatentable over any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). An inter partes review may be instituted if “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). Upon consideration of the papers, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’629 patent would have had “at least a Bachelor’s level college degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Physics, Computer Science or a related field, and at least two years of training or experience in the design of inkjet printheads.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 45). Patent Owner does not identify a level of skill in the art that one would have had at the time of the invention of the ’629 patent or identify any shortcoming in Petitioner’s formulation. See Prelim. Resp. 42–43. For purposes of this Decision on Institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt the recitals of “at least” as that language is vague and openended. Pet. 14–15. This definition is consistent with the ’629 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8

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

    “The parties both argue that we should construe “non-contiguous hybrid arrangement” to mean “[a]n arrangement in which the first set of logic cells are interleaved or interlaced with the second set of logic cells.” Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 43. Petitioner supports its argument by pointing to the claim construction order from the HP litigation, which provides this construction for this term. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1010, 4 (construing non-contiguous hybrid arrangement)). Patent Owner supports its argument by citing to the written description and figures of the ’629 patent. Prelim. Resp. 43–46 (citations omitted). For example, Patent Owner cites Figure 4 of the challenged patent, and its accompanying text, and argues that Figure 4 illustrates that the “logic cells [are] interleaved in a manner that minimizes the space between heater arrays by forming a single linear array.” Id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 4). The accompanying text teaches that “the magenta logic cells 440a–n may be interleaved between the cyan logic cells 420a–n in an alternating manner to form a single, linear hybrid cyan/magenta P-logic array 302.” Ex. 1001, 5:67–6:4; Prelim. Resp. 45 (citing same). The ’629 patent adds that “[b]ecause of this interlacing of cyan P-registers 420a–n and magenta P-registers 440a–n, neither the cyan P-registers 420a–n nor the magenta P-registers 440a–n remain contiguous,” and that “[f]or example, in F[igure] 4, the cyan logic cell 420b is followed by the magenta logic cell 440a instead of the next cyan logic cell 420c.” Ex. 1001, 6:10–15; Prelim. Resp. 45 (citing same). We have reviewed the parties’ arguments, and we adopt the parties’ proposed construction for this term. In addition, we determine that no express construction is needed for any other term for us to render our Decision on Institution. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “However, we agree with Patent Owner that Hayasaki does not disclose that AND circuit array 5M’ and AND circuit array 5Y are arranged in a non-contiguous hybrid arrangement. Prelim. Resp. 51–52, 54–63. Rather, Hayasaki’s AND gates are arranged in a grid, with each magenta 6 Petitioner argues that “‘a first and a second set of logic cells’ is indefinite because it is unclear if this requires (i) a first set of logic cells and a second set of logic cells, (ii) first and second sets of logic cells, or (iii) a set of first logic cells and second logic cells.” Pet. 30 n.5. We disagree. The plain reading of this limitation corresponds to a first set of logic cells and a second set of logic cells, which is in accord with the interpretation Petitioner applies in this proceeding. Id. AND gate of AND circuit array 5M’ located directly aligned with the corresponding yellow AND gate of AND circuit array 5Y—they are not interleaved or interlaced. Ex. 1004, Fig. 9. Put differently, Hayasaki teaches that AND circuit array 5M’ and AND circuit array 5Y comprise two separate columns of logic cells that are not interleaved or interlaced. See Ex. 1004, Fig. 9, ¶ 93. Thus, Hayasaki does not teach sets of logic cells in a non-contiguous hybrid arrangement.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,559,629

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.