• Apple Inc. / Zte(Usa) Inc. v. Invt Spe LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2019 · IPR2018-01474 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claim 4 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Bender and Piret rendered it obvious; claim 3 had been statutorily disclaimed.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 4 would have been obvious over Bender and Piret. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (To prevail in an inter partes review that has been instituted, “the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”). III. CONCLUSION We conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’587 patent challenged in the Petition. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of the ’587 patent, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 17

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “We agree with Patent Owner. “A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.” Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. Am. Tri–Ergon Corp., 294 U.S. 477 (1935)). An inter partes review cannot be instituted on claims that have been disclaimed and no longer exist. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”). This conclusion is consistent with other panel decisions addressing this issue. See, e.g., Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC, Case IPR2018-00935, Paper 9, 9–10 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2018); Vestas-Am. Wind Tech. Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., Case IPR2018-01015, Paper 9, 12–14 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2018). Accordingly, we treat claim 3 as having never been part of the ’587 patent, and do not institute inter partes review on this claim. As discussed above, we regard claim 4 as the only challenged claim. See Sections I.A and I.E.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundDecided for patent owner

    “Accordingly, a plain reading of the reference does not support a finding that Bender teaches or suggests that the FEC scheme is used to encode the SNR itself. Therefore, we are not persuaded that Bender’s FEC description would have provided reason to look to Piret’s encoding techniques for encoding Bender’s “quality” information. That is, although we agree with the Petitioner that Piret teaches and suggests a method of encoding less significant bits differently from the more significant bits of each data word, wherein the most significant bit of the plurality of bits is encoded to be less susceptible to errors (Ex. 1005, 1:20–33), that alone is insufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness of providing an encoder that encodes Bender’s SNR “quality” information, as required by claim 4. That Piret discloses encoding transmitted information does not address the requirements set forth in KSR to provide articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. That is, the Petitioner’s obviousness position does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have encoded the SNR value in Bender, which may not even be transmitted, using Piret’s encoding method. Indeed, Petitioner does not direct us to persuasive evidence that encoding the SNR value would have been expected to provide any advantage, outside the teachings of the ’587 patent. Here, for these reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence from prior art references or Dr. Singer’s declaration testimony to support its contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used Piret’s techniques to encode Bender’s SNR values in the manner required by the claims—such that the most significant bit of the plurality of bits is encoded to be less susceptible to errors. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Instead, we conclude that Petitioner used improper hindsight to reconstruct the claimed subject matter by using the claims as a guide to combine the prior art references. Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” Id. In that regard, Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Singer, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ʼ587 Patent’s invention would have been a person having a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent plus three years of experience working with wireless communication systems or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering with an emphasis on communication systems or the equivalent plus one year of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering. Pet. 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 39. At this juncture, Patent Owner does not dispute Dr. Singer’s assessment on the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on the current record, we apply Dr. Singer’s assessment for purposes of this Decision. We also note that the prior art of record currently in the instant proceeding is consistent with this level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,206,587
• Tricklestar LLC v. Embertec Pty Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2017 · IPR2016-01336 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379; claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over EP ’379 and EP ’752.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt that definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. See Ex. 1001, 1:14–15 (“The invention relates to aspects of the monitoring of electrical power supply to electrical equipment.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to a method and system to provide power saving for electronic devices while such devices are in the standby mode and are not in use, particularly for a setting accommodating multiple electronic devices especially in the end-user sector.”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates to an automatic means switch device used to disconnect a load from” slip op. at 9

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

    “We determine that we do not need to expressly construe “input” (claim 1), “electrical input” (claim 9), “sensor” (claims 1 and 9), and “alert device” (claim 5) to determine whether Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–7 and 9 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 11

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

    “EP ’379 was published April 22, 2009. Ex. 1002, [43]. Because EP ’379 was published before the earliest possible invention date of record in this proceeding, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that EP ’379 is prior art to claims 1–4, 7, and 9 of the ’099 patent at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Pet. 16. As illustrated above, Petitioner adds red ovals around what it contends, and with which we agree, correspond to the claimed sensor and microprocessor: infrared receiver unit 10 and microprocessor 12. Id. EP ’379 discloses that infrared receiver unit 10 is coupled to microprocessor 12 and that the infrared receiver unit monitors wireless output signals from a remote control. Ex. 1002, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 24, 26. Specifically, EP ’379 discloses that “the signals of the remote controls of electronic devices connected to the subject controller [are] sensed, identified, and interpreted by the controller.” Id. ¶ 23; see also id. ¶ 26 (stating that “the remote control signals controlling the devices connected to the controller can also be sensed by the controller”). According to EP ’379, “[t]he controller unit identifies as to which electronic device’s remote control the user has depressed by means of the signal receiver (10) on itself.” Id. ¶ 24. EP ’379 also discloses that the microprocessor terminates power supplied to the external electrical device based upon the absence of detection of signals from the remote control. Id. ¶ 26. EP ’379 states the following: The controller can be set to a predetermined time period in order to save power, and if no signal is received within this time period from a remote control of any device connected to it, the controller can turn OFF such devices in turn or at the same time according to a predetermined power saving rule. Id. EP ’379 adds an example of a user setting the automatic turn-off period to three hours. Id. Under this example, according to EP ’379, “if the user does not depress any key on any remote control of any electronic device connected to the controller, or if no signal is sensed by the controller within three hours, the controller may power off the electronic devices connected to itself in sequence according to an automatic turning-off rule.” Id. In sum, Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by EP ’379.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,106,099 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,106,099
• Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*link CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2017 · IPR2017-01177 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution

  Instituted review of claims 1–20: claims 1–6 and 8–15 on obviousness over Otto, and claims 7 and 16–20 on obviousness over Otto, Gainsboro, and San Martin.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claims 1–20 of the ’250 Patent are unpatentable. The Board has not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of these claims. The Board’s final determination will be based on the record as developed fully during trial.” slip op. at 25

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “As quoted by Patent Owner, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) addresses whether “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” To evaluate this criterion, we examine what arguments and art were presented to and considered by the Examiner during prosecution. Although Otto was considered by the Examiner (Ex. 1004, 243 indicates Otto was included in an Information Disclosure Statement by the Applicant), the Examiner did not rely on Otto in any rejection of the issued claims in view of Otto. We are further persuaded that the Examiner has not been shown to have considered Otto in the instant context, i.e., with claims 10 being argued as being obvious over Otto and with declaration testimony opining that the claims would have been obvious over Otto (Ex. 1002). Patent Owner also faults Petitioner for not distinguishing Otto from San Martin (Prelim. Resp. 7), but it is not necessarily incumbent on a petitioner to distinguish the disclosures of newly applied and previously applied prior art references. Patent Owner points out similarities in the disclosures of Otto and San Martin (id. at 6–7), but does not demonstrate what similar portions of Otto and San Martin would have been considered in finding certain claims allowable. See Ex. 1004, 219. Such a consideration is important because Patent Owner incorporated the allowable subject matter into the independent claims to gain allowance. See Ex. 1004, 290. At this stage of the proceedings, we are persuaded that that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the subject matter of the independent claims are taught or suggested by Otto, and as discussed below, we are not persuaded that the disclosures of Otto and San Martin are necessarily cumulative.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner asserts that such a person “would have held at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar field, and had at least two years of experience (or the academic equivalent) working with speaker-dependent voice recognition in the context of telecommunications.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–41). Patent Owner does not offer an alternate characterization at this time. As such, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “Hence, we determine that “match” would have been understood as determining whether two data items are identical or finding a data item that is identical to a key. See Ex. 3001. Furthermore, we determine that “substantially” would have been understood as to a great or significant extent, or for the most part or essentially. See Ex. 3002. Therefore, we determine that the broadest reasonable construction, consistent with and in 7 the context of the specification, of “substantially matches” is “determining whether two data items are for the most part or essentially identical.” See also Verve v. Crane Cams, 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Expressions such as “substantially” are used in patent documents when warranted by the nature of the invention, in order to accommodate the minor variations that may be appropriate to secure the invention.”)); see, e.g., Ecolab Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “like the term ‘about,’ the term ‘substantially’ is a descriptive term commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter”) (citation omitted). Although Petitioner does not proffer an explicit construction for the claim term “substantially matches,” Petitioner does argue that the prior art discloses “both exact matches and matches that deviate from exact matches by predetermined amounts.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 74). Therefore, we are persuaded that Petitioner is implicitly applying a claim construction of “substantially matches” that comports with the broadest reasonable construction determined herein.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,521,250
• Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · CBM2016-00034 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1–3 and 5 are also anticipated by Riach, and specified claims are obvious over combinations of Riach, Graf, Gustin, and Anderson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “For these reasons, we determine that claim 20—its focus and its” slip op. at 37

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that claim 20 is directed to an” slip op. at 52

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

    “encompasses Riach’s process that copies a portion (but not all) of the original check image data to produce the required modified check image data. Accordingly, we agree that the portion of Riach on which Petitioner relies discloses step (b) of claim 1 that requires, among other limitations, the modified check image data not include at least some visual feature data included in the check image data. Pet. 30 (relying on Ex. 1008, 5:16–30, Figs. 4, 7).” slip op. at 73

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

    “several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Apple, 839 F.3d at 1058 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 89

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,163 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power · Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,163
• Nautilus Hyosung Inc. v. Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 10, 2017 · IPR2016-00530 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–15, 18–20, 22–26, and 28–30 unpatentable as obvious over the five instituted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on our review of the ’010 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’010 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Drs. Kaufman and Kurfess, we adopt and apply Dr. Kaufman’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We also note that the applied prior art 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 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on our review of the evidence, we determine that Swinton and Nobuaki teach these limitations because the cited portions of the references in the claim chart meet the respective limitations of claim 1, as Petitioner contends (Pet. 26–31). We also credit Dr. Kaufman’s declaration testimony regarding how Swinton and Nobuaki would have conveyed the limitations of claim 1 to one of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–49. Dr. Kaufman’s detailed analysis is based on multiple citations to the references and, therefore, provides sufficient factual corroboration.” slip op. at 18

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

    “Rather, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” for combining the teachings of two prior art references. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Specifically, Petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art teachings. Personal Web Techs. v. Apple, 848 F.3d 987, 991–92 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek 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 arguments must be supported by a “reasoned explanation.” NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1383 (citing In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Here, Petitioner has shown that a person of skill in the art would have had reason to combine Nobuaki’s teachings regarding a specific mechanism for moving currency into different storage compartments with the ATM system in Swinton in order to solve the common problem of transporting currency bills or checks in different compartments. See Pet. 14–15; Ex. 1003 ¶ 53. We agree with Petitioner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace the storage bins and sorting mechanism of Swinton’s ATM with the sorting/storage device of Nobuaki. See Pet. 13–14; Reply 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–54. Specifically, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kaufman that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a goal of Swinton’s ATM was to transport checks or bills into separate compartments and Nobuaki teaches a specific mechanism for achieving that goal. Ex. 1003 ¶ 53 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 140, 343; Ex. 1012, 12:31–36). Therefore, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Swinton and Nobuaki and would have been led to do so by the teachings of these references. Accordingly, we find that challenged independent claim 1 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the disclosures of Swinton and Nobuaki.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for “a movably mounted plunger member” and “[first/second] wall surfaces bounding the [first/second] storage location and in opposed facing direction of the [first/second] backing plate.” Pet. 7–8. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed constructions and does not offer its own constructions. See generally PO Resp. After analyzing the claims and supporting specification of the ’010 patent, we determine that we need not provide express constructions for the claim terms noted by Petitioner. To the extent it is necessary, however, we discuss certain other claims terms in the context of analyzing whether the prior art renders the challenged claims unpatentable.” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 7,229,010 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,229,010
• Broadsign International, LLC v. T-Rex Property ABInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 26, 2017 · CBM2017-00008 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · CBM · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the challenged patent was not shown eligible for CBM review; claims 1, 11, 12, 49, 51-55, and 58-74 were disclaimed.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We conclude that the information in the Petition does not demonstrate that the challenged patent is eligible for covered business method patent review. In addition, even after Patent Owner submitted, on February 7, 2017, its Preliminary Response and evidence of filing statutory disclaimer, Petitioner did not request an opportunity to present arguments that any other claims would meet the threshold financial requirement for a covered business method patent review. The remaining challenged claims 13, 42, 43, 48, 50, 56, and 57 on their face do not evince claiming a financial product or service, and the written description describes the invention as being broader than placement of commercial advertising. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:50–53 (encompassing “direct placement of commercial advertisements, public service announcements and other content on electronic displays”). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of showing that the challenged patent is eligible for covered business method patent review. Therefore, we do not institute a covered business method patent review for claims 13, 42, 43, 48, 50, 56, and 57 of the ’603 patent.” slip op. at 9

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “that it filed with the Office a statutory disclaimer of claims 1–12, 17, 19, 20, 22, 28–33, 45–47, 49, 51–55, and 58–74 of the challenged patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a). Ex. 2001, 4; see Prelim. Resp. 7. The disclaimer of a claim “shall . . . be considered as part of the original patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 253(a). The language “considered as part of the original patent” means that a patent subject to a disclaimer under § 253(a) “is treated as though the disclaimed claims never existed.” Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Altoona Publix Theatres v. Am. Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U.S. 477, 492 (1935); Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Thus, even though claims of the challenged patent existed at the time the Petition here was filed, we must now treat the challenged patent as if it had never included those claims. 1. Disclaimed Claims Challenged in the Petition Of the challenged claims, Patent Owner disclaimed claims 1, 11, 12, 49, 51–55, and 58–74. Ex. 2001, 4. A covered business method patent review cannot be instituted based on disclaimed claims. 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(e) (“The patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No post-grant review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”). Accordingly, no covered business method patent review will be instituted for disclaimed claims 1, 11, 12, 49, 51–55, and 58–74. Nevertheless, our analysis continues because not all of the claims challenged in the Petition have been disclaimed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for several terms that recite “means.” Pet. 33–35; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (A petition must set forth “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed. Where the claim to be construed contains a means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the construction of the claim must identify the specific portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function.”). Patent Owner does not address directly Petitioner’s proposed constructions. See generally Prelim. Resp. 1–11. We conclude that no term needs to be construed expressly in order for us to determine whether a covered business method patent review should be instituted.” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 6,430,603
• Ultratec, Inc. v. Captioncall, L.L.C.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2017 · PGR2016-00037 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition did not show that any claim was more likely than not unpatentable under § 101 or § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review of claims 1–23 of U.S. Patent No. 9,197,745 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’745 patent” or “the challenged patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, CaptionCall, L.L.C., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have authority to determine whether to institute a post-grant review. 35 U.S.C. § 324; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting a post-grant review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). After considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate it is more likely than not that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute a post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of broadest reasonable construction standard in inter partes review9). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Petitioner proposes constructions for “message” recited in claims 2, 4–8, and 12 and for “module” recited in claims 2–6 and 8. Pet. 9–11. Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions as overly narrow. Prelim. Resp. 8–9. We determine, however, that no claim terms need express construction for this decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 not directed to exceptionNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 12) that claim 1, as a whole, is directed to an apparatus that facilitates voice communication and captioned text communication using a relay for hearing-impaired users over one or more communications networks and, under specified circumstances— when captioning has been enabled by the hearing-impaired user and the system determines that an attempted connection has failed—automatically reconnects to a captioning communication service. In other words, the claim is directed to a communication device that automatically reconnects to a captioning communication service following an unwanted interruption to the 12 captioning communication service in certain circumstances. See Ex. 1001, 1:13–16 (describing the field of the disclosure as relating to a communication device that automatically reconnects to the captioning communication service “following an unwanted interruption to the captioning communication session”). We determine that claim 1 as a whole is not directed to redialing a telephone as “callers have performed for as long as there have been telephones.” See Pet. 20. Moreover, the claim is directed to an apparatus having communication elements and a processor, and requires two connections and captioning, which, taken as a whole, distinguish claim 1 from a conventional telephone and further supports our determination that the claim merely involves, but is not directed to, the concept of reconnection or redialing. Moreover, looking at the elements individually, claim 1 requires communication elements coupled with a processor configured to able to connect a communication device and connect with a captioning session over two connections. Claim 1 recites a function—“automatically connect with the captioning communication service through a second connection to establish a captioning communication session during the voice communication session responsive to a determination that an attempted connection to the captioning communication service failed during a time in which a caption select option has been enabled by the hearing-impaired user, wherein the attempted automatic connection through the second connection is not made during a time in which the caption select option has been 13 disabled by the hearing-impaired user”—which requires more than “redialing” a telephone. See Prelim. Resp. 11–12. Specifically, the claimed apparatus only performs the “automatically connect” function if three conditions are met: (i) responsive to a determination that an attempted connection to the captioning communication service failed (ii) during a time in which a caption select option has been enabled by the hearing-impaired user, and (iii) “the attempted automatic connection through the second connection is not made during a time in which the caption select option has been disabled by the hearing-impaired user.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “excerpts from Parker as purportedly describing aspects of the automatically reconnect limitation. Id. at 40–42. Petitioner does not assert that either the Ultratec User Guide or Parker alone would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the automatically connect function with the three conditional limitations (id.), nor is such an assertion required under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner is required under 35 U.S.C. § 103, however, to explain how the combination of the references would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill 25 in the art the recited automatically connect function with its three conditional limitations. Petitioner has not provided such an explanation, much less adequate analysis by Mr. Zatkovich or factual support as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the separate disclosures of the references to teach the automatically connect limitations. Specifically absent from the Petition is any discussion as to how Petitioner’s combination of references would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the limitations of automatically connecting under the required conditions—the failed attempt limitation, the when-enabled limitation, and the when-not-disabled limitation. Petitioner’s combination relies on Parker’s reconnection function to establish a lost persistent connection, but Parker’s reconnection function does not do so conditionally, much less under the specific conditions required by claim 1. Petitioner does not explain how the combination of Parker’s unconditional reconnection function would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to retry conditionally based on whether the Ultratec User Guide’s caption button was enabling captioning and had not been disabled by the caption telephone user. Furthermore, Petitioner contends that “adding an auto-retry and/or auto-reconnect feature as in Parker to a captioned telephone device as disclosed in [the Ultratec User Guide and Engelke] would amount to simply adding a known technique to a known system, wherein the technique operates in the same way as it was already known to operate and dos not have any unpredictable result.” Pet. 34. As such, Petitioner’s combination 26 expressly relies on Parker’s auto-retry and/or auto-reconnect feature “as in Parker,” which is an unconditional retry in the event of a lost connection. In sum, neither reference by itself describes the automatically reconnect limitation and Petitioner fails to articulate how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claimed automatic reconnect in view of the cited disparate disclosures from the references. “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Petitioner asserts in a conclusory manner that the combination of a teaching of a button to enable or disable captioning with a teaching of automatic reconnection unrelated to whether captioning is enabled or disabled would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the automatic reconnection limitation. Petitioner fails to provide adequate explanation or factual support. This flaw of the Petition is particularly problematic when the threshold for institution is “more likely than not,” as here, rather than the threshold of “a reasonable likelihood” required to institute an inter partes review. Compare 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), with 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,197,745
• TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2017 · IPR2015-01761 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 16–26, 29, and 33–36 are unpatentable as obvious over Palatsi and Moore.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “’931 patent, the types of problems encountered in the art of handheld radio telephone devices and handheld devices, the prior art solutions to those problems, and the educational level of workers active in the field.” Id. In contrast, Dr. Wolfe does not explain the basis for his opinion. 1207 ¶ 58. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Mr. Ward is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. Our analysis would not differ, however, if we adopted Dr. Wolfe’s definition.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed

    “Second, and more importantly, we credit Dr. Wolfe’s testimony that the express disclosure of Moore would have conveyed enabling or disabling the touch strips and, which in combination with Palatsi’s processor, would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art “a second mode wherein the controller is unresponsive to contact with one of the banks of touch strip” (Ex. 1207 ¶ 180). Dr. Wolfe’s testimony relies on an express disclosure of Moore (switching touch strip banks) and explains how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that teaching. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). We accord Mr. Ward’s testimony less weight than Dr. Wolfe’s testimony because Dr. Wolfe’s testimony better comports with the express description of Moore of switching between banks of touch strips. In re Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”). Dr. Wolfe’s testimony also addresses what the combined teachings of Palatsi and Moore would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Ex. 1207 ¶ 180), whereas Mr. Ward’s testimony unduly focuses on Moore’s isolated disclosures (see, e.g., Ex. 2057 ¶ 78 (“Again, I” slip op. at 31

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

    “Prior to our Institution Decision, Petitioner proposed constructions for “contact-sensitive transducer . . . which produces an output signal” and “graphical object(s).” Pet. 11–13. Patent Owner did not propose any express constructions or challenge Petitioner’s proposed construction. See generally PO Resp.; Paper 6 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response). In the Institution Decision, we determined that no claim term required express construction. Inst. Dec. 6. In its Response, Patent Owner indicates that it “generally agrees that the constructions proposed by [Petitioner] are in keeping with how a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood those terms.” PO Resp. 23. We determine that no term in the challenged claims requires express construction for this Final Written Decision. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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 14

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

    “3. Analysis We agree with Petitioner’s analysis described above and adopt it as our own. We, therefore, determine that the combination of Palatsi and Moore as set forth by Petitioner would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art all the limitations recited by independent claim 16. Our inquiry continues because “[a] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Apple, 839 F.3d at 1058 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS RE43,931 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
• TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Ericsson Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2017 · IPR2015-01583 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 13, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Korpela and Beaton.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Given that the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar, we adopt a hybrid of the two proposals for the purposes of this Final Written Decision. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art, for the purposes of the analysis below, is a person having a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, or electrical engineering, and five years of experience with communications systems and networking, cellular communication protocols, and/or real-time embedded systems, or equivalent education and experience. Our analysis, however, would not differ if we adopted the level of ordinary skill set forth by either party.” slip op. at 8

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

    “To clarify this issue, we note that claim 1 recites “[a] portable wireless communications device, comprising: . . . a read only memory (ROM) having . . . a control program.” Ex. 1001, 7:2–11 (emphases added). Claim 1 also recites “a control processor controlling the operation of said transmitter and said receiver in response to said control messages according to said control program,” and “said man-machine interface operates under the control of said control processor according to said control program.” Id. at 7:16–18, 7:20–22 (emphases added). Each of these recitations of “said control program” refers to the previously recited control program. Thus, Petitioner is correct that claim 1 is not necessarily limited to a single control program because, by virtue of the open-ended language, the portable wireless communications device could include control programs in addition to the control program recited in the claim. Nevertheless, we interpret claim 1 as requiring the transmitter and the receiver and the man-machine interface as being controlled according to the same control program. Other than this clarification, we determine that no other terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purpose of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find, as Petitioner contends, relying on citations to Beaton and Mr.Ulrich’s testimony, that Beaton discloses a control program written in Java stored in a ROM along with a Java interpreter. Ex. 1023, 4:51–5:11; Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 207–208; see, e.g. Pet. 50 (citing Ex. 1023, 4:51–5:11; Ex. 1026 ¶ 209). Also, we find Korpela discloses a ROM containing a control program and the possibility of storing a control program in an interpreted language and an interpreter for the control program instead of a compiler and a protocol code file. Ex. 1024, 10, 17; Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 201–218; see Pet. 44, 47–48 (arguing same). Our finding is based on citations to Korpela and on Mr. Ulrich’s testimony, which we credit because it cites to Korpela and thus discloses underlying facts on which his opinion is based. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). For the reasons that follow, we determine the combination of Korpela and Beaton set forth by Petitioner would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the limitation of a ROM having a Java control program and a Java interpreter program, as recited in claim 1. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument to the contrary. Despite any alleged deficiencies, Petitioner provides persuasive evidence that, at the time of the invention, Java also provided several known advantages—such as platform independence, high performance, security, and simplicity. Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1026, 33, 37 (citing Ex. 1022, 9); Ex. 1008, 11). Our reviewing court has recognized that a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate any or all reasons to combine the references. See Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). In this case, the evidence of record does not support a finding that the disadvantages alleged by Patent Owner outweigh the several advantages of using Java. That the ’310 patent fails to explain how the disadvantages Patent Owner asserts would have dissuaded a skilled artisan from using Java were overcome by the claimed invention also supports our finding.” slip op. at 17

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

    “reports. For example, regarding Exhibit 1022, Petitioner correctly points out that “the very next sentence of the report states that ‘[h]owever, by combining certain Java programming conventions with special implementation techniques, it is possible to support varying degrees of realtime reliability,’ including ‘100% guaranteed compliance with hard-real-time constraints.’” Reply 20 (quoting Ex. 1022, 1). Exhibit 1022 also states that “[t]he benefits of a Real-Time Java standard include lower development and maintenance costs, quicker time to market, increased portability, enhanced network connectivity, improved reliability, and increased functionality of real-time systems.” Exhibit 1022, 2 (emphasis added). In view of these additional statements, we determine that Exhibit 1022 does not teach away from using Java in a real-time application. Regarding Exhibit 1013, the same person who states “you can’t write hard real-time parts in Java,” also states, regarding an effort to define real-time extensions to Java, “[y]ou still won’t get microsecond latencies in Java, but you will get safe real-time applications.” Ex. 1013, 6. As such, neither one of these two Exhibits, which represent only a small sample of the commentators in the Java community in any event, completely discredit the use of Java in real-time applications. We, thus, are not persuaded that the statements noted by Patent Owner would have dissuaded one of ordinary skill in the art from making the proposed combination. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 6,418,310 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,418,310
• TCL Corporation / TCL Communication Technology Holdings, Ltd. et al. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2017 · IPR2015-01628 · APJ Stacy B Margolies · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioners did not show claim 11 unpatentable under either § 103 ground because they did not establish a persuasive motivation to combine Usui and Gong.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not challenge Dr. Malek’s testimony regarding the level of skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. However, Dr. Muftic, Patent Owner’s declarant, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would probably have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, with at least two years’ experience in the field of software security.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 22. Dr. Muftic’s proposed level of ordinary skill differs slightly from Dr. Malek’s. Patent Owner, however, does not cite the above testimony in its Patent Owner Response. Nor does Patent Owner or Dr. Muftic quarrel with the definition proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Malek. See generally PO Resp. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioners’ declarant is consistent with the challenged patent and the asserted prior art, and we therefore adopt Dr. Malek’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below. However, our analysis would not differ if we were to adopt Dr. Muftic’s definition.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Petitioners propose constructions for a number of terms, and asserts that “interface component,” “interception module,” “decision entity,” “security access manager,” and “access controller” are means-plus-function limitations. Pet. 16–20; Pet. Br. 5–15. Patent Owner disagrees that the foregoing terms are means-plus-function limitations and asserts that only “software services component” be explicitly construed. PO Br. 6–16; PO Resp. 8–9. As explained below, the dispositive issue in this case is whether Petitioners provide a persuasive articulated reason with rational underpinning to support their contention that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Usui and Gong. In reaching this issue, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Indeed, Patent Owner cites uncontroverted evidence that in designing the J2ME platform for mobile phones, Sun Microsystems did not use the full security of the Java 2 Standard Edition and its fine-grained protection domains like that described in Gong. See Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 210, 211, 223, 224. For example, the specification for the CLDC of J2ME, which defines a “standard, minimum-footprint Java platform for small, resource-constrained, connected devices,” states that “the J2SE security model is too memory-consuming to be included in a CLDC device that allows only a few hundred kilobytes of total memory budget.” Ex. 2014, 14, 25; see also PO Resp. 21– 26. In addition, a 2000 JavaOne presentation from a Sun Microsystems employee explains that the “J2SE platform security model is much larger than the entire CLDC implementation” and that the “full J2SE™ platform security model” cannot be supported in CLDC target devices. Ex. 2015, 48. In view of this context, Petitioners lack of explanation regarding purported design incentives that would have prompted a skilled artisan to make the proposed combination is significant. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 5 (disclosing that the Usui team designed the user interface (UI) “so that the Java part was as small as possible” to “achieve good performance of the UI capability in the mobile phone” and noting that “[r]eleasing resources that are no longer used by Java applications is very important for resource-limited systems such as mobile phones”); Ex. 1001, 1:55–61 (disclosing that “drastically increased functionality” in cellular telecommunications systems “has placed substantial demands on the developers of mobile terminals” and this demand “is exacerbated by the fact that a mobile terminal is a ‘resource scarce’ environment that is limited in size, memory, and power”).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,149,510 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,149,510

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.