• Qualcomm Incorporated / Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2017 · IPR2015-01828 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21, 281, 283–286, 288, 289, and 293 are unpatentable as obvious over Nozawa and Philips 4052; claims 25, 26, 363–366, 368, 369, and 373 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Qualcomm contends, citing Dr. Larson’s testimony, that one of ordinary skill in the art as of October 1998 would possess, at a minimum, either (a) a master of science degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of experience in radio frequency circuit design, or (b) a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering with three or more years of experience with the design and development of RF circuits. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–39). ParkerVision does not contest Qualcomm’s designation of the level of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of the invention. Accordingly, we adopt Qualcomm’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “During the trial, ParkerVision asserted that we should maintain our construction of “harmonic” (PO Resp. 19–23), and Qualcomm did not address the adopted construction. With respect to the remaining terms, ParkerVision argues that none of these terms are material to the remaining dispute between the parties, which is focused on the “harmonic” limitation. Id. at 24–25. On this, we agree. As the remaining terms are not material to the parties’ dispute, we decline to construe them further. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Regarding the Maas equation, ParkerVision directs us to a portion of Dr. Larson’s deposition, in which Dr. Larson used the Maas equation to calculate the harmonics produced by a mixer, given certain assumed inputs supplied by ParkerVision’s counsel (an input signal of 100 kHz and an LO input of 1 MHz). Id. at 29–31 (citing Ex. 2001, 177–87). ParkerVision notes that Dr. Larson’s calculations produced -0.9, 3.1, and -4.9 MHz as the first three harmonics, which are not integer multiples. PO Resp. 31. Thus, ParkerVision argues, the circuit of Nozawa does not necessarily produce a plurality of harmonics, defined by the ’940 patent as being integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. Id. Qualcomm argues that the Maas equation “shows that Nozawa will necessarily produce the required ‘integer multiple’ harmonics for many input frequencies.” Pet. Reply 4 (emphasis added). According to Qualcomm, it is not required to show that Nozawa will produce integer multiple harmonics for all operating conditions; rather, it is only relevant that Nozawa could be operated to produce the harmonics. Id. Regarding Dr. Larson’s calculations during his deposition, Qualcomm contends that even using the assumed inputs provided by ParkerVision, the Maas equation shows that the 35th and 37th harmonics are 35.1 and -36.9 MHz, respectively, which are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency of 0.9 MHz. Id. at 7. Qualcomm also notes that selecting slightly different input frequencies for the Maas equation will produce much lower integer multiple harmonics, such as at the 7th and 9th harmonics. Id. at 8. The parties’ disagreements over the various inputs and permutations of the Maas equation aside, one point appears to be beyond dispute: under some conditions, but not all conditions, the Maas equation shows that Nozawa’s structure will produce a periodic signal that contains integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. In other words, the structure of Nozawa is capable of producing a signal that satisfies the limitations of the claim. Qualcomm argues that this is sufficient to show unpatentability. Pet. Reply 13 (citing Gen. Electric Co. v. Jewel Incandescent Lamp Co., 326 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1945)). On this point, we agree. Claim 21 and its dependents are apparatus claims; as such, they “cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In other words, the “periodic signal” limitations, which are directed to the transitory electrical signals produced by the apparatus, cannot give rise to patentability so long as the underlying apparatus has been shown to be capable of generating those signals. Here, it is undisputed that Nozawa’s circuit is capable of generating a periodic signal having a plurality of harmonics, wherein those harmonics are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. Furthermore, we agree with Qualcomm that Nozawa’s low-pass filter is capable of isolating one or more of those harmonics, as desired.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Qualcomm contends that “Nozawa and Philips 4052 both provide architectures and methods for upconversion that can be used for a transmitter.” Pet. 21. Indeed, as Qualcomm observes, the 74HC4052 chip described in Philips 4052 is used in Nozawa. Id. at 28–29. We agree with Qualcomm that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to look to the disclosure of Philips 4052 to learn more about the operation of the 74HC4052 chip disclosed in Nozawa. ParkerVision does not challenge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Nozawa with Philips 4052.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 6,091,940 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,091,940
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Ixi IP, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01444 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–7, 12, 14, 15, 22, 23, 25, 28, 34, 39, 40, 42, and 46 are unpatentable under the stated § 103 combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ arguments require us to consider whether a printer is commensurate with the broadest reasonable interpretation of “thin terminal.” See Pet. 30–31; PO Resp. 42–43; Pet. Reply 18–20. The ’033 patent describes “thin terminals” as having “a relatively low power central processor and operating system” and as being “mainly used as peripherals to an Application server in a PAN.” Ex. 1001, 5:2–5. The main tasks of a thin terminal are described as “user interaction, rendering output for a user and providing an Application server with a user’s input.” Id. at 5:5–7. Examples of thin terminals provided in the ’033 patent include a watch and a messaging terminal. Id. at 5:5–7. Furthermore, the ’033 patent contrasts thin terminals with smart terminals having “a relatively powerful central processor, operating system and applications,” such as “a computer notebook and PDA.” Id. at 4:62–5:2. In describing a messaging terminal in one embodiment, the ’033 patent states that the terminal “has no embedded application code or data.” Id. at 10:18–21. Petitioner contends a printer is a thin terminal because, at least, a printer “has a low power central processor and operating system relative to a laptop computer or PDA.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 25) (internal quotation omitted). We agree with Petitioner, and we additionally observe that a printer is a peripheral utilized for rendering user output, which is consistent with the Specification’s description of a thin terminal. We also agree with Petitioner that the Specification’s reference to “no embedded application code or data” (Ex. 1001, 10:18–21) does not preclude a printer with application code and/or data from being a thin terminal, because the ’033 patent also describes the thin terminal locating, downloading, and executing software. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:13–25). As such, we determine the “thin terminal” recited in claims 7 and 46 encompasses a printer.1” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a Master[] of Science Degree (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science with a concentration in communication and networking systems or, alternatively, a Bachelor’s Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical or computer engineering and having two or more years of experience in communication and networking systems. Pet. 7–8. Petitioner’s contention is supported by the testimony of Dr. Kiaei, who bases his testimony on his “experience working in industry and academia, with undergraduate and postgraduate students, with colleagues from academia, and with engineers practicing in industry.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15– 16. IXI does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and, in fact, IXI applies it in IXI’s Patent Owner Response. PO Resp. 8; see also Ex. 2301 ¶ 16 (IXI’s declarant, Dr. Mandayam, applying same definition). Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision. We further observe that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the qualifications a person would need to understand and implement the teachings of the ’033 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “3. Marchand Marchand is a published international patent application, and Petitioner asserts Marchand’s priority date under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is April 3, 2000, the date of filing for a prior national application (i.e., Marchand Priority) in the United States. See Pet. 4–5. IXI does not contest Petitioner’s priority date assertion. Therefore, for purposes of this decision, we find Marchand qualifies as prior art to the ’033 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because April 3, 2000, predates the May 7, 2001, filing date of the ’033 patent.” slip op. at 10

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

    “ordinarily skilled artisan “would have modified Marchand’s system such that the public IP address of the mobile phone gateway 33 was provided by the cellular network 35.” PO Resp. 40 (quoting Pet. 17–18). IXI argues that Marchand and Vilander do not indicate a need for the cellular network to provide a public IP address for the gateway mobile phone. Id. (citing Ex. 2301 ¶ 70). Nevertheless, we agree with Petitioner that “using Vilander’s address allocation in Marchand would have amounted to nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way or the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Pet. Reply 15 (citing, inter alia, KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)); see also Pet. 19 (citing same). Although Marchand describes gateway mobile phone as having “a public IP address recognized in the wireless IP network,” Marchand does not explicitly describe how the public IP address is assigned. Pet. Reply 16 (quoting Ex. 1005, 4:23–30). In light of this, Petitioner identifies evidence that Vilander’s GGSN would have improved Marchand by allocating the public IP address to Marchand’s gateway mobile phone 33. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 46; Ex. 1011, 1:48–52, 1:57–59).” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 7,039,033 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,039,033
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Ixi IP, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01445 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9, 13–17, 19, 21–23, 27, 28, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over Liu alone and Liu with Chiloyan; anticipation by Liu was not shown.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “systems. Pet. 7. In its Response, Patent Owner states it applies Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill on in the art. PO Resp. 9. Based on our review of the ’648 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’648 patent and cited prior art, we adopt, for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We note that the applied prior art also reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner submits that “all terms of the ’648 Patent should be given their broadest reasonable plain meaning.” Pet. 4. Patent Owner submits that “the terms of the challenged claims should be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 9. Just as in the Decision on Institution, we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation standard here. In our Decision on Institution, we stated that “we do not explicitly construe any claim terms.” Dec. 5. We similarly see no reason to construe explicitly any claim term at this stage in this proceeding. B. Anticipation Analysis” slip op. at 6

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

    “identifier includes manufacturer information, as required by the independent claims. Patent Owner correctly notes that there is no explicit disclosure in Liu of manufacturer information present in the device information. PO Resp. 21–22. Petitioner has not directed us to a disclosure in Liu that expressly states that manufacturer information is present in the device information. We are unpersuaded by Dr. Kiaei’s testimony, which is couched in terms of what Dr. Kiaei opines “must be” in Liu, rather than what Liu expressly discloses. Ex. 1003 ¶ 39. Dr. Kiaei’s testimony discusses portions of Liu regarding manufacturer 1670 and its registration of device identifiers for toys, but these citations to Liu do not expressly disclose the disputed claim limitation. Id. ¶¶ 37–39. Dr. Kiaei provides no additional authority for the statements supporting the assertions in paragraphs 37–39, in particular, the statement that “each identifier must be associated in some way to the particular manufacturer of the toy to allow ‘each toy to be used within the system [to] be uniquely recognized.’” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 39); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (stating opinion testimony that does not disclose underlying facts or data “is entitled to little or no weight”). We also find unpersuasive the argument that “each identifier must be associated in some way to the particular manufacturer of the toy to allow ‘each toy to be used with the system [to] be uniquely recognized.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 39. Liu states that, via registration of a device identification number for the toy, “each toy to be used in the system may be uniquely recognized.” Ex. 1005, 46:5–7. If, as hypothesized by Dr. Kiaei, two manufacturers registered the same toy identifier for two different toys, then by its terms, the toy would not be uniquely recognized, as required by Liu. Id. Petitioner also has not carried its burden to establish that Liu inherently discloses that the device information includes a manufacturer of the device. “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference.’” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Inherency is not “established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Id. (quotation omitted).” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that there remains ambiguity about the field of endeavor Patent Owner seeks to identify with respect to the ’648 patent. Reply 20. “The field of endeavor of a patent is not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner characterizes the field of endeavor of both disclosures as “techniques for network communication between devices and servers,” which, while broad, is not unreasonable. Reply 22. Although Liu’s most noticeable feature may be a teddy bear, the underlying networking and functionality of its system place it in the same field of endeavor as the ’648 patent. See id. at 20–21 (including citations to Liu’s disclosures of aspects of network interactions between toy devices and servers). Limiting Liu’s field of endeavor to “toys” is insupportably narrowing when Liu in fact discloses networking features that in numerous instances align with the disclosure of the ’648 patent. Regarding the particular problem to be solved, our position remains the same as in the Decision on Institution. Liu’s disclosure is, at least, reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors of the ’648 patent, i.e., “the problem of ‘sending software to a device connected to a local network from a remote server.’” Dec. 14. Thus, we remain persuaded that Petitioner has established sufficiently that Liu is analogous art.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,016,648 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,016,648
• Honeywell International Inc. v. Allure Energy, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01248 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 20, 22–25, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamashita and Shamoon; claims 2–4, 6–8, and 19 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is attempting to improperly limit the construction. As we explained in our Decision on Institution, we declined to limit “comparison” to a particular type of evaluation, and by our construction, we did not find that the “focus” of the “comparison” is to identify “any dissimilarity” as Patent Owner contends. See Inst. Dec. 9. Indeed, as evidenced by the dictionary definitions cited by Patent Owner and that we relied upon, determining dissimilarities is not the “focus” of the plain and ordinary meaning of “comparison” that we adopted. See Inst. Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 2003 (defining “comparison” as “the act of looking at things to see how they are similar or different” and “the act of suggesting that two or more things are similar or in the same category”)); see also Ex. 2011 (defining “comparison” as “the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another” and “an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities”).” slip op. at 6

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

    “Here, we agree with Petitioner that the plain language of the claim is sufficient and no construction is necessary for this term. The claim language already establishes that there are two user profiles, each is associated with a particular and different mobile device, and the profiles include “information to alter an operating condition of the network device according to a preference of a [first/second] user.” The claim already addresses what attributes the user profile must have. We see no support in the claim language or specification for Patent Owner’s additional requirements that the profiles be “individual” and “include information unique to each user.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “v. Summary as to Claims 1, 20, 22–25, and 30 Patent Owner raises no evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness in this case. Thus, weighing the evidence of obviousness that is before us, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 20, 22–25, and 30 would have been obvious over the combination of Yamashita and Shamoon.” slip op. at 31

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We do not find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. Teaching away requires that “a person of ordinary skill upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).4 Patent Owner cites nothing in Yamashita that says that adding the features from Shamoon in addition to the automatic functionality of Yamashita would be unlikely to work; Yamashita alleges only that manual control alone has certain disadvantages. 4 We understand Patent Owner to be arguing both that the references teach away from the combination generally and teach away because, in particular, the combination would change the principle of operation of the system. PO Resp. 33–36. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. McGaw, Inc., 149 F.3d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (finding no teaching away where nothing in the prior art device suggested that the claimed invention was unlikely to work). The lack of teaching away is confirmed by Yamashita’s disclosure of an embodiment requiring manual interaction. See Reply 20 (citing Ex. 1006, 22:31–51). Indeed, although Patent Owner contends that automatic functionality is “not the focus or main purpose of Shamoon,” PO Resp. 35, Shamoon’s system demonstrates that automatic functionality can be combined with manual functionality to result in a working system. See Ex. 1007, 8:36–45. As for Patent Owner’s contentions that Yamashita “abandoned bi- directional communication” (PO Resp. 35), we find no support in the cited portions of Yamashita for these contentions. Although Yamashita does tout the benefits of its automatic control system, the cited portions of Yamashita are silent about the advantages or disadvantages of “bi-directional communication.” As for Patent Owner’s arguments about substantial reconstruction and redesign (PO Resp. 36 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 91)), we do not find the testimony or argument persuasive. Yamashita’s control terminal and mobile terminals already has built in communication abilities (Ex. 1006, 11:31–38), and we find Dr. Selker’s testimony persuasive that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add the ability to communicate the thermostat reading to verify that Yamashita’s automatic control worked. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 205–207. As for Patent Owner’s allegation that the combination with Shamoon would change Yamashita’s principle of operation, we disagree. Yamashita would continue to work as before; the messages, rules, and control information would continue operate in the same manner. Shamoon would only add additional functionality to allow for an improved user interface and two-way communication. Where the device would operate on the same principles as before, the combination does not change the principle of operation. See Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332 (noting Ratti inapplicable where the modified apparatus will operate “on the same principles as before”). As Petitioner explains, Shamoon demonstrates that its known techniques have been used to improve similar devices in similar ways. We find that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 205–207, 213. Thus, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Yamashita and Shamoon.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,626,344 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,626,344
• Honeywell International Inc. v. Allure Energy, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2016 · IPR2015-01251 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9–14, 16, and 26–29 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamashita and Shamoon; claims 15, 17, and 18 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s further narrowing of our construction is improperly limiting. As we explained in our Decision on Institution, we declined to limit “comparing” to a particular type of evaluation, and by our construction, we did not find that the “focus” of the comparison is to identify “any dissimilarity” as Patent Owner contends. See Inst. Dec. 10. Indeed, as evidenced by the dictionary definitions cited by Patent Owner and that we relied upon, determining dissimilarities is not the “focus” of the plain and ordinary meaning of “comparing” that we adopted; rather, each of them emphasizes determining similarities as well. See Inst. Dec. 9 (citing Ex. 2002 (defining “comparison” as “the act of looking at things to see how they are similar or different” and “the act of suggesting that two or more things are similar or in the same category”)); see also Ex. 2006 (defining “comparison” as “the representing of one thing or person as similar to or like another” and “an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities”). The specification does not compel a different understanding. The” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “that the parties’ actual dispute is twofold. First, the parties dispute whether the mobile device must be able to transmit location information to the site regardless of whether the proximity setting is enabled or disabled. See Reply 8–9; PO Resp. 14–15. Second, Patent Owner argues that the entire process of proximity detection must be automatic. PO Resp. 14. As we explain below, we agree with Petitioner that this term does not require that the mobile device continue to send location reports if the proximity setting is not enabled, whereas we disagree with Petitioner that the proximity setting is limited to enabling or disabling the ability to send location reports. Instead, we find the specification supports a broader construction. In particular, we find that the specification states that “[f]or example, a user may enable proximity detection using proximity detection selector 1036 and energy use at a site may be altered based on a user[’]s distance to the site.” Ex. 1001, 46:45–48. It further explains that “[i]n some forms, proximity detection selector 1036 can be hidden, displayed, selectable, or any combination thereof in response to a user having a mobile device capable of being detected when a user is at or away from a site.” Id. at 46:50–54. Thus, we consider the broadest reasonable construction of “proximity setting” consistent with the specification to be “a setting that can enable or disable proximity detection, where energy use at a site may be altered based on the user’s location.” Both parties acknowledge that this is a reasonable meaning of the term. Reply 8; PO Resp. 12.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In sum, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the control terminal in Yamashita receives messages from the wireless terminals that represent the relative location of the mobile terminal (e.g., within 300 m of the site or moving away from the site) and that the control terminal includes a number of rules to compare the messages to determine what control information to send to the controlled appliances, and that as a result of the comparison sends control information to alter the condition of the controlled appliances. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 214–216. Thus, we are persuaded that Yamashita accounts for the “comparing limitations” of claim 9.” slip op. at 27

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

    “We find that Petitioner has shown adequately that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Yamashita with Shamoon. In particular, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Yamashita teaches away from the combination or that the combination would change the principle of operation of Yamashita.3 Patent Owner is correct that Yamashita distinguishes manual control, and notes the disadvantages of “burdensome operations” and the possibility the user may forget to perform the required operations. Ex. 1005, 1:35–40. Patent Owner is also correct that Yamashita states that one objective of the invention is a system that can automatically control an appliance based on position without requiring any operation by the user. Id. at 1:44–47. Yet, Yamashita also discloses an embodiment where the user is prompted before a message is sent, which does require an operation by the user. Id. at 23:31–51. Thus, we do not agree that Yamashita disparages all manual interaction as Patent Owner contends. Moreover, teaching away requires that “a person of ordinary skill upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Patent Owner cites nothing in Yamashita that says that adding the communication features from Shamoon to transmit the thermostat readings to the mobile terminal to the automatic functionality of Yamashita would be unlikely to work; Yamashita alleges only that manual control alone has certain disadvantages, not that communicating information from the site to” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,626,344 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,626,344
• Deere & Company v. Richard GrammAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 22, 2016 · IPR2015-00898 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 and 27–34 are unpatentable as obvious over the three instituted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “significantly different, and the differences between their proposed levels of ordinary skill would not affect the outcome of this proceeding.5 In light of our review of the record, including the ’395 patent, the competing expert testimony, and the issues discussed during the oral argument, we agree with different aspects of the parties’ proposals. First, as Petitioner notes in its Reply, a mechanical engineer having familiarity with hydraulic systems and sensors, as Patent Owner proposes, does not have experience necessarily with agricultural equipment or combines. Reply 2, n.1. Thus, Patent Owner’s educational prong is overly broad. Second, Petitioner’s educational prong, on the other hand, is too narrow, requiring “design” of combines or agricultural equipment. Third, we find that Petitioner’s experience prong also is too narrow, because it requires experience specifically in the “design” of agricultural equipment or combines. Accordingly, we find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “a mechanical engineer having familiarity6 with agricultural equipment, such as combines, and hydraulic systems and 5 Indeed, neither party argues that any difference between the proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome of this proceeding. 6 The familiarity may have been gained, as proposed by Petitioner, by “approximately three years of experience in combine or agricultural equipment design, including components thereof, such as headers and header height control systems” (Pet. 5 (citation omitted)), but also may have been gained through other experience. sensors” or “a person having 10 or more years of experience7 working with combines.”8” slip op. at 11

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that under either party’s proposed construction, Cleveland’s sensor arm, including spring 38, is flexible. See infra pages 41–42 (Section III.B.5.a.ii.b)2.b.). Accordingly, we need not choose between either party’s proposed constructions. 2. Other Claim Terms The parties propose constructions for several additional claim terms, including “pre-loaded,” “angular deflection sensing means,” “control means,” “biasing means,” “first stop means,” “second stop means,” “guard means,” and “flange.” Pet. 11–15; Resp. 19–23. Although the parties have some disagreement as to the meaning of several of these terms, there is no dispute that the references upon which we instituted review disclose these elements of the claims.4 Accordingly, there is no controversy as to these terms that requires our resolution in order to ascertain whether the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the invention in light of the references and arguments before us.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingMixed

    “a “header” or a “combine” per se; rather, it is a header height control apparatus—an “apparatus for detecting and controlling the height above the soil of an agricultural machine as it traverses a field.” Ex. 1001, 1:11–13. Nonetheless, there is no prohibition on a patentee drafting his or her claim in a manner that further limits the invention if additional structure is recited in the claim. As argued by Patent Owner, the recitation of “a non-cut crop header” and “a combine” in the preamble of claim 1, provide antecedent basis for at least two terms recited in the body of the claim—“the header” and “said combine.” The body of the claim reflects that the patentee chose to claim the header control apparatus in terms not limited to said apparatus standing alone, but rather the apparatus as attached (coupled) to the header of a combine. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:33–34 (“a pre-loaded, generally linear flexible arm coupled to a forward portion of the header” (emphasis added)); 7:44–45 (“control means coupled to said header” (emphasis added)); 7:48– 51 (“wherein said flexible arm and angular deflection sensing means are attached to a head housing disposed on a forward portion of said combine” (emphases added)); 7:54–56 (“wherein said mounting bracket further couples said flexible arm to a forward end of said head housing” (emphasis added)). The prosecution history reflects that the patentee at first desired the recitation of “header” in the claim to be limited to “non-cut crop” headers, in an attempt to distinguish cut crop headers. Ex. 1002, 142 (Amendment filed June 19, 2000). The examiner, however, did not accept such argument (id. at 152–53 (Office Action mailed Aug. 24, 2000)), and the patentee did not reiterate or maintain the argument in amending the claims following the August 24, 2000, final rejection. Id. at 158–63 (Amendment filed Nov. 22, 2000). Nonetheless, the prosecution history is informative on this issue. In light of our discussion above regarding the claim language, specification, and the prosecution history, we do not construe the entire preamble as limiting. In particular, the preamble recites an apparatus for maintaining, and is presented clearly as reciting an intended use. That being said, we agree with the Patent Owner that the phrase “non-cut crop header” limits the terms “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 such that “the header” and “said header” recited in the body of claim 1 are the same “non-cut crop header” recited in the preamble of the claim.13” slip op. at 23

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

    “e. Conclusion of Obviousness We have considered Petitioner’s evidence and argument and determine that the combination of DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and DA meets the limitations of claims 1–7, 10, 27, 28, and 34, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason, with rational underpinning, for combining the teachings of these references. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary and determine that they are unpersuasive. The parties do not introduce or rely on objective indicia of nonobviousness. After weighing the evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–7, 10, 27, 28, and 34 would have been obvious over DPC, Chmielewski, Cleveland, and DA.” slip op. at 61

  Patent outcomesUS 6,202,395 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,202,395
• Qualcomm Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-01577 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 14, 16, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are unpatentable; claims 3, 15, and 27 were not shown unpatentable, with the specified-vote limitation not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “sequence.” Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Zhi Ding, attests that the phrase is “a well-understood term of art.” Ding Decl. ¶ 35 (citing Ex. 1016, 127–33). Consistent with Dr. Ding’s testimony, we applied a preliminary construction of “hopping sequence” in the Institution Decision as “the order in which the communications network hops among the set of frequencies.” Dec. 7. That construction is not contested by Patent Owner, and we adopt it for this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “as disclosed by Gerten’s description of modified frequency hopping schemes. Id. at 14. In doing so, Petitioner notes that Gerten discloses periodic updating of the modified frequency hopping scheme, supporting a conclusion that Gerten discloses selection at different times. Id. at 14, 15– 16. Petitioner highlights this periodic updating to identify distinct “period[s] of time” during which different “set[s] of two or more communications channels [are] used to transmit and receive.” Id. at 15–16 (italics omitted). In addressing independent claim 1’s specific requirement that different sets of channels be used with the second and third communications devices, Petitioner reasons that the process summarized above may be applied by the master device to each of the slave devices separately: “the master device of Gerten performs a service discovery request to determine if each slave device has interference avoidance capabilities.” Id. at 18 (emphasis added) (citing Ding Decl. ¶ 53; Ex. 1003, col. 4, ll. 38–51). Thus, Petitioner argues, if one slave has such interference avoidance capabilities, communications with that slave may take place using a modified frequency hopping scheme; if another (legacy) slave lacks such interference avoidance capabilities, communications take place using a normal mode with default communications channels that are not changed based on channel performance. Id. at 18 (citing Ding Decl. ¶ 55); see id. at 16–17. Thus, Petitioner concludes, the recited transmissions and receptions from the third communications device over default communications channels occur “while” transmitting to and receiving from the second communications device over the first and second sets of communications channels, as we have construed the term “while.” Petitioner supports this reasoning with testimony by Dr. Ding, which we credit. Id. at 18 (citing Ding Decl. ¶¶ 53– 55).” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “Petitioner further provides persuasive reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the relevant teachings of Gerten and Cuffaro, including that “Cuffaro and Gerten are in the same field of endeavor” of selecting channels to avoid interference in a communications system; that measuring interference signal strength at a slave device such as described by Cuffaro provides a more accurate determination of the impact of the receiver unit from the interference on a given channel, and, therefore, would provide more accurate identification of bad channels in Gerten; and that Gerten suggests such a modification by describing that both a master and a slave can participate in identifying channels to avoid. Pet. 30–31. Petitioner supports this reasoning with declaration testimony by Dr. Ding. Ding Decl. ¶¶ 128, 129.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)). Patent Owner understates the degree to which Petitioner addresses the analogousness of the art by focusing on Petitioner’s contention that Gerten and Cuffaro are in the same field of endeavor. PO Resp. 40 (citing Pet. 30). Petitioner also addresses the second prong of the Clay test by providing reasons why a person of skill in the art would use the transmitted performance data of Cuffaro in the selection process of Gerten, including improved accuracy in determining the impact on the receiver unit from the interference on a given channel. See Pet. 31. We agree with Petitioner’s reasoning and find that Cuffaro and Gerten are analogous art to the claimed invention at least because they are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 14, and 26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gerten and Cuffaro.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,477,624 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,477,624
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 30, 2016 · IPR2015-00377 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 10, 12–16, 18–24, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious; the challenges to claims 2, 8, 11, 17, 25, and 27 were not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “claims). Pet. 7. In our Decision to Institute, we determined the broadest reasonable construction of anomalous is: “deviation/deviating from a model of typical computer system usage.” Dec. 6. We specifically recognized that the Specification contemplates that “attack data” may be used to build the model used as a baseline for comparison to identify anomalous behavior. Id. Neither party has indicated that our determination in regard to that claim construction was improper, and we do not perceive any reason or evidence that now compels any deviation from our initial determination.” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “one of these distinct models, the ‘Oracle model,’ is combined with other models.” Pet. Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1008, 11:53–64 (showing that a selected ‘Oracle model’ is used in combination with a k-means algorithm and a Markov transition model); Ex. 1015 (Goodrich Suppl. Decl.) ¶ 19). Petitioner has not explained, however, why models created on different computers would be relevant to Khazan’s static model where the specific execution of two different computers would not affect the model.2 See In re Omeprazole Patent Litig., 536 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (reasoning that even though a certain modification could have been possible, it would not have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art “would not have seen any need” to make the modification). Although we acknowledge Petitioner’s argument that Agrawal teaches using a combined model from different processors and the testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Goodrich to that effect (Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 84)), we are not persuaded that this would be sufficient to motivate the 2 Petitioner’s Declarant, in his supplemental declaration, states “[u]sing multiple computers spreads the computational overhead involved in creating the models across the computers, and allows for more models to be created in a shorter amount of time.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 20. We do not rely on this statement because this theory was not presented in the Petition and although the paragraph containing this language is cited to in Petitioner’s Reply at page 6, it is not explained or specifically relied upon. 24 combination given the differences discussed above. In other words, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that there was a motivation to apply the models produced on different computers as taught by Agrawal to the system of Khazan. Therefore, Petitioner, has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 11, and 27 were obvious over the combination of Khazan and Agrawal.” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot shown unpatentableUnpatentableMixed

    “Petitioner also asserts through its Declarant that “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that random selection of models is one of a finite number of identified, predictable selection techniques and it would be obvious to try random selection among models because it has a reasonable expectation of success.” Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 86). Petitioner does not explain how random selection is one of a finite number of predictable selection techniques; for example, Petitioner does not show how many other techniques could be considered. See Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“KSR posits a situation with a finite, and in the context of the art, small or easily traversed, number of options that would convince an ordinarily skilled artisan of obviousness . . . . [T]his clearly is not the easily traversed, small and finite number of alternatives that KSR suggested might support an inference of obviousness.”). Dr. Goodrich has not identified sufficient support for the predictability of the art. For example, Dr. Goodrich has not explained sufficiently why, or identified evidence that shows the invention described in the ’322 Patent falls into a very predictable field, one of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed the requisite skills to make the proposed combinations, or one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have anticipated the combination to function in an ordinary and expected way. See Rothman v. Target Corp., 556 F.3d 1310, 1319–20 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 21 Finally, Petitioner cites Sobel (Ex. 1011)1 as support for it being “obvious to randomly select a subset of a group of computing choices.” Pet. 30. Petitioner characterizes Sobel’s teachings too broadly. Ex. 2030 ¶ 117. Sobel is directed to “providing software updates to a random sample of computers,” not to randomly selecting models. Pet. 30. Thus, we are not persuaded that Sobel is relevant to the inquiry here. For the reasons stated above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8, 17, and 25 were obvious over the combination of Khazan and Agrawal.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition fails to propose properly a level of ordinary skill in the Petition itself and that the level of skill suggested by Petitioner’s Declarant is higher than the level used in the related district court case. PO Resp. 6–8. Nevertheless, Patent Owner does not argue that the combinations of the teachings of the references are beyond the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. The level of skill in the art might be gleaned from the prior art itself. See Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A specific finding on the level of skill in the art is not . . . required where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”). Here, we find that the prior art adequately reflects an appropriate level of skill and that Patent Owner does not demonstrate a need for testimony or other evidence to establish the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Also, we find that, even though Dr. Goodrich suggests a level of skill higher than the level used in the related district court case, Patent Owner does not show sufficiently that any such difference in level of skill is material to the obviousness analysis in this case.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,601,322 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,601,322
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00372 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Bace and Russinovich; claims 9 and 10 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed likelihood of observing a feature.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “We have considered the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, and we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 3–8 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. We determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9 and 10 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich.” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Michael T. Goodrich, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 28. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 18–19. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex 1029 ¶¶ 13–14; Ex. 2018, 78:2-23. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations E. Patent Owner filed a Motion for Observations on the cross examination of Dr. Michael T. Goodrich (Paper 47), to which Petitioner filed a Response (Paper 50). We have considered Patent Owner’s observations and Petitioner’s responses, and we have given Dr. Goodrich’s testimony the appropriate weight in making our determination in this case.” slip op. at 30

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

    “determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 9. Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 23–24; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 23–24; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’084 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 9 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. Claim 10 6. Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and recites “wherein determining a likelihood of observing a feature comprises determining a conditional probability of observing a first feature in the records of processes that access the operating system registry given an occurrence of a second feature in the records.” Ex. 1001, col. 23, ll. 8–12. Because claim 10 depends from claim 9, and Petitioner has not shown that claim 9 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich, we determine that Petitioner also has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 10 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich. See supra Section II.B.5.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 7,448,084 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,448,084
• Symantec Corporation v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 31, 2016 · IPR2015-00378 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14 and 16–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Bace and Russinovich; claims 25 and 26 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish the claimed feature-likelihood limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “contends that this construction is necessary to clarify that the challenged claims require monitoring registry accesses because Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Michael T. Goodrich, testified during his deposition that the records “may be records that don’t have direct impact on the registry.” Id. at 7–8. Even if Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Goodrich’s deposition testimony is accurate, Petitioner does not argue in the Petition or the Reply that the challenged claims do not require monitoring registry accesses. See Pet. 13–15, 21–32; Pet. Reply 1, 3–8. As such, there does not appear to be a dispute that requires claim construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). Nonetheless, in order to avoid any ambiguity, we provide an express construction of the phrase “records regarding processes that access the operating system registry.” We determine that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction. The written description of the ’084 patent consistently indicates that records of processes are obtained by monitoring accesses to the operating system registry. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 6–18, col. 8, ll. 9–10, col. 8, ll. 22–24, col. 13, ll. 28–31, col. 13, ll. 46–52. In addition, Petitioner acknowledges that the challenged claims require monitoring accesses to the operating system registry. Tr. 12:15–13:3. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, however, omits the claim terms “processes” and “operating system,” which are part of the phrase being construed. Ex. 1001, col. 23, ll. 32–34. Therefore, we modify Patent Owner’s proposed construction to include those terms. Specifically, we construe the phrase “records regarding processes that access the operating system registry” to mean “records regarding processes obtained by monitoring accesses to the operating system registry.”1” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelOther

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “a Master’s degree in computer science or a related field with two to three years of experience in the field of software security systems.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. George Cybenko, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’084 patent would have had “an undergraduate degree in computer science or mathematics, and one or two years of experience in the field of computer security.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 28. Thus, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, defines the level of ordinary skill in the art slightly higher in both education and experience. Patent Owner points out this difference, but does not argue that it materially impacts either party’s analysis. PO Resp. 9–10. In fact, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, testifies that his analysis would not change under the slightly lower level of ordinary skill in the art set forth by Patent Owner. Ex 1029 ¶¶ 7–8; Ex. 2018, 78:2-23. In other words, the minor distinctions between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are not material. As a result, we determine that both parties define the level of ordinary skill in the art appropriately in this case. Patent Owner argues that, even if Petitioner correctly defines the level” slip op. at 9

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

    “90–93, 128, 139 (pp. 68–69); Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 9–10. Therefore, the teachings of Bace, together with the background knowledge and perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, would have made it obvious to use records obtained by monitoring registry accesses as an information source for an anomaly detection system. See Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362– 63 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 13

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

    “Thus, Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing an event, but does not identify evidence indicating that Bace teaches determining the likelihood of observing a feature, as recited in claim 25. Pet. 41–42; Pet. Reply 23–24; Tr. 30:2–15, 31:6–12. Petitioner instead argues that an event is the “same thing” as a feature. Tr. 30:20–24, 32:9–13. Petitioner, however, improperly presented this argument for the first time at the oral hearing. Id. at 30:13– 15; Pet. 41–42; Pet. Reply 23–24; see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument.”). Moreover, Petitioner does not identify any evidence from the ’084 patent (or otherwise) to support its argument that an event is the same thing as a feature. Tr. 31:1–5; see Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent instructs that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”). Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 would have been obvious over Bace and Russinovich.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,448,084 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,448,084

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.