- PTAB · Apr 12, 2022 · IPR2022-00246 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 12–15, and 17–20 on all asserted grounds and granted LG Electronics’ motion to join IPR2021-00985.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, we institute inter partes review of the Challenged Claims of the ’835 patent. We also grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and join Petitioner to IPR2021-00985.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“35 U.S.C. § 315(c). We have explained that a motion for joinder should: (1) set forth reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) explain what impact, if any, joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery may be simplified. Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013).” slip op. at 7
NonePatents in suitUS 7,292,835 - Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 15, 2022 · PGR2020-00084 · APJ Frederick C Laney · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19, 21–42, and 44–53 are unpatentable as obvious over Szrek; claims 20 and 43 are unpatentable as obvious over Szrek and Gilmore.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We find Patent Owner’s contention persuasive. We agree that the description of a POSA in this case, which is most consistent with the scope and content of the ’894 patent and the prior art, properly includes a working knowledge of both POS activation systems and lottery systems. Therefore, the level of skill in the art for this case is an artisan with a working knowledge of POS activation systems and lottery systems that was gained through a mixture of training and work experience in the relevant field such as (i) having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer communications, electrical engineering, or equivalent degree, coupled with at least three years of work experience; (ii) having a Master’s degree in computer science, computer communications, or electrical engineering, but having less work experience; or (iii) having no formal degree, but having experience in the relevant field of at least six years of work experience. Although Patent Owner’s proposal most accurately reflects the background of the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art, the differences between the parties’ proposed formulations are not material to any issue in dispute and the parties do not contend otherwise. All of the findings and conclusions set forth below would have been the same had we instead adopted Petitioner’s proposed formulation.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the plain meaning of “transaction processor”/“transaction processor system” applies, which is a processor [system] that processes transactions between two devices.8 We agree with Petitioner that adding “third party” to the plain meaning simply creates uncertainty. For example, it is unclear whether “third party” imports a limitation for the owner/manufacturer of the processor/system to be a different entity than the owner/manufacturer of the retailer and lottery administration devices (which is unrelated to the functionality or structure of the processor/system) or whether “third party” 8 Rather than “between two devices,” Patent Owner refers to “between a lottery administration system and retailer.” PO Resp. 20. Because other elements in the claims dictate the particular devices with which the transaction processor communicates, we determine that it would be improper to import that limitation into the meaning of “transaction processor”/“transaction processor system.” Nevertheless, even if those particular devices were imported, it would not change our obviousness analysis because no issue rests on whether the alleged transaction processor in the prior art is processing a transaction between a lottery administration system and retailer. imports a limitation for the processor/system to be a separate and distinct device from the retailer point of sale and lottery administration devices. Although Patent Owner’s counsel made clear that the latter interpretation was intended (Tr. 41:10–42:7, 43:2–43:15), we do not agree that the use of the words “third party” in Figures 7 and 8 of the ’894 patent limits the “transaction processor” and “transaction processor system” to being a separate and distinct device from the retailer and lottery administration devices. Identifying the transaction processor as a “Third Party Processor” in two illustrative figures depicting a process (Ex. 1001, Figs. 7, 8), without anything more in the written description to explain why a “third party processor” may be an important or significant aspect of the transaction processor or invention as a whole, does not justify limiting the plain meaning of a “transaction processor” to the “third party processor” shown. Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp., 783 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that an invention will only be limited to its preferred embodiment when “the patentee uses words that manifest a clear intention to restrict the scope of the claims to that embodiment”).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Therefore, we construe “transaction processor” and “transaction processor system” in accordance with their plain meaning, which is a processor [system] that processes transactions between two devices. Additionally, we decline to limit “transaction processor” and “transaction processor system” to “third party” processors or systems because the intrinsic record does not justify such a modification and it would create uncertainty. However, we do construe the “transaction processor”/“transaction processor system,” “retailer”/“retailer POS,” and “lottery administration system” as separate and distinct components.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“processing unit, causes payment confirmation for the pre-printed lottery ticket to be provided to the lottery administration system. And Patent Owner disputes whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown Szrek discloses the transaction processor (store back office 240) provides payment confirmation to the lottery administration system (game provider 250). PO Resp. 13–14, 48–53; Sur-reply 19–20. We are persuaded by Petitioner, however, that Szrek’s description of the inter-operational characteristics of store back office 240, cash register/POS terminal 230, and game provider system 250 would have suggested to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention that store back office 240 would include an instruction to cause payment confirmation for the pre-printed lottery ticket to be provided to the game provider system 250. Ex. 1007, 4:28–29, 4:56–67, 5:17–20, 6:44–47; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 62–64.” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 10,769,894 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,769,894 - W-W Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Jager Pro, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 16, 2022 · IPR2020-01471 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 based on the combinations listed in the decision.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied
“1 The Supplemental Response updated the following: (1) the exhibit list with a corrected description for Exhibit 2007, (2) the Conclusion (Part 8) of the Response to include a completed signature section, and (3) an updated Certificate of Compliance to confirm the word count of the Response. PO Supp. Resp. 2. 2 A combined oral hearing was held for this proceeding and related proceeding IPR2020-01470. 3 Petitioner served and then filed, at our request, a list of objections to Patent Owner’s demonstrative exhibits. Paper 37; see Tr. 6:3–26 (discussing Petitioner’s objections). As we explained at the oral hearing, “although the demonstratives are a useful aide during the oral hearing, we do not rely on them when rendering a final written decision. We rely on the arguments raised in the briefing and the evidence submitted in each case.” Tr. 6:11–15.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyDecided for petitioner
“by Petitioner. In particular, Petitioner “substitut[es] the triggering mechanism and methodology of Jeong for the tripwire triggering mechanism known from the TexasBoars Combination” and asserts that such substitution “would yield predic[t]able results with a reasonable expectation of success.” Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 135). The success identified by Petitioner is making the modifications proposed—substituting or adding the teachings of Jeong to TB1/TB2 to create a remotely controlled, monitored/detected corral trap. Nothing about these modifications has anything to do with trap-shyness or conditioning of the animals as Patent Owner contends. Rather, the success has to do with whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the combination. And, Petitioner’s arguments are supported by Dr. Ditchkoff’s testimony (Ex. 1002 ¶ 135) as well as Jeong itself because Jeong effectively takes a trap and adds the same features (remote control and detection) that Petitioner proposes to add to TB1 and TB2 (see Pet. 20 (relying on Jeong and the stated benefits therein)). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to make the modifications proposed and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.” slip op. at 63
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“by Petitioner. In particular, Petitioner “substitut[es] the triggering mechanism and methodology of Jeong for the tripwire triggering mechanism known from the TexasBoars Combination” and asserts that such substitution “would yield predic[t]able results with a reasonable expectation of success.” Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 135). The success identified by Petitioner is making the modifications proposed—substituting or adding the teachings of Jeong to TB1/TB2 to create a remotely controlled, monitored/detected corral trap. Nothing about these modifications has anything to do with trap-shyness or conditioning of the animals as Patent Owner contends. Rather, the success has to do with whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the combination. And, Petitioner’s arguments are supported by Dr. Ditchkoff’s testimony (Ex. 1002 ¶ 135) as well as Jeong itself because Jeong effectively takes a trap and adds the same features (remote control and detection) that Petitioner proposes to add to TB1 and TB2 (see Pet. 20 (relying on Jeong and the stated benefits therein)). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to make the modifications proposed and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.” slip op. at 63
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness.”); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 74 (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, the only claim for which we consider the question of nexus is claim 1.58” slip op. at 127
Patent outcomesUS 10,098,339 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,098,339 - W-W Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Jager Pro, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 16, 2022 · IPR2020-01470 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable as obvious over the listed combinations of TB1, TB2, Jeong, and, where applicable, Vorhies, Silsby, and Kimura.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“1 A combined oral hearing was held for this proceeding and related proceeding IPR2020-01471. 2 Petitioner served and then filed, at our request, a list of objections to Patent Owner’s demonstrative exhibits. Paper 34; see Tr. 6:3–26 (discussing Petitioner’s objections). As we explained at the oral hearing, “although the demonstratives are a useful aide during the oral hearing, we do not rely on them when rendering a final written decision. We rely on the arguments raised in the briefing and the evidence submitted in each case.” Tr. 6:11–15. Thus, we have noted Petitioner’s objections, but we dismiss them as moot because demonstrative exhibits are not evidence and we do not rely on them in rendering this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Challenged Claims. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). Having reviewed the arguments and the supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Challenged Claims of the ’228 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“by Petitioner. In particular, Petitioner “substitut[es] the triggering mechanism and methodology of Jeong for the tripwire triggering mechanism known from the TexasBoars Combination” and asserts that such substitution “would yield predic[t]able results with a reasonable expectation of success.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 110). The success identified by Petitioner is making the modifications proposed—substituting or adding the teachings of Jeong to TB1/TB2 to create a remotely controlled, detected corral trap. Nothing about these modifications has anything to do with trap-shyness or conditioning of the animals as Patent Owner contends. Rather, the success has to do with whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the combination. And, Petitioner’s arguments are supported by Dr. Ditchkoff’s testimony (Ex. 1002 ¶ 110) as well as Jeong itself because Jeong effectively takes a trap and adds the same features and method (remote control and detection) that Petitioner proposes to add to TB1 and TB2 (see Pet. 32 (relying on Jeong and the stated benefits therein)). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to make the modifications proposed and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.” slip op. at 70
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, the only claim for which we consider the question of nexus is claim 1.59” slip op. at 128
Patent outcomesUS 9,814,228 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,814,228 - Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01265 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 3 is unpatentable under §103 over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet; the Board did not reach the Tayloe and Kawada ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“proposes that it be construed to mean “an element that stores a nonnegligible amount of energy from an input electromagnetic (EM) signal.” Pet. Reply 10. Petitioner contends that its proposed construction expressly tracks the definition provided in the ’551 patent for “storage element,” which the parties agree is synonymous with “storage module.” Id.; see id. at 10 n.2. In particular, Petitioner asserts that the ’551 patent states: “Storage modules . . . refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.” Id. (quoting Ex. 2007, 66:65–67). Petitioner notes that the ’551 patent also states that “the ‘goal of the storage modules’ is ‘to store non-negligible amounts of energy transferred from the EM signal’” and that the patent “specifically distinguishes storage elements from holding elements on this basis.” Id. at 10–11 (quoting Ex. 2007, 66:59–67 (“Holding modules . . . identify systems that store negligible amounts of energy from an under-sampled input EM signal with the intent of ‘holding’ a voltage value. Storage modules . . . on the other hand, refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.”)). Thus, Petitioner contends “‘storage element’ should be construed accordingly.” Id. at 11 (citation omitted).” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Owner fails to “establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention.” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220. In particular, neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Steer makes any attempt to establish nexus with the elements recited in claim 3 based on a presumption of co-extensiveness or otherwise. Each instance in which Dr. Steer mentions claim 3, he only ties the discussion to energy transfer systems or energy sampling in general, which is based on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction that we do not adopt. See, e.g., Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 229 (“energy transfer (energy sampling) system – of claim 3”), 230 (“energy sampling as set forth in claim 3”), 233 (“[u]sing energy sampling . . . as set forth in claim 3”), 234 (“energy sampling as set forth in claim 3”), 235 (same), 236 (same), 237 (“using the energy transfer (energy sampling) system of claim 3”), 238 (same), 239 (“energy sampling system as set forth in claim 3”). Thus, we find that Patent Owner fails to establish that a presumption of nexus is warranted and similarly fails to establish nexus absent the presumption. Accordingly, for the reasons above, Patent Owner has not satisfied its burden to establish nexus. See WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (patent owner “bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists”).” slip op. at 64
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,444 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Engle Grange, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 19, 2022 · IPR2020-01334 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable over McCullough and DeBono under §103; the Board did not reach the other asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“proposed “a combined system that implements DeBono’s teaching into McCullough’s key fob system,” not that DeBono teaches a second authentication step using a key fob. Id. (citing PO Resp. 21–22; Pet. 41–46, 48–60). Petitioner explains that it “never proposed bodily incorporating DeBono’s biometric shifter into McCullough’s system, and accordingly, [Patent Owner’s] arguments as to DeBono alone miss the mark.” Id. at 14 (citing Pet. 41–46, 53). Petitioner reiterates that its “actual combination of McCullough and DeBono” “perform[s] McCullough’s already-disclosed key fob authentication in the same way a second time during gear shift, as taught by DeBono.” Id.” slip op. at 53
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsOther
“4. Objective Considerations of Nonobviousness Neither party presents evidence of objective considerations of” slip op. at 67
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“that “[t]o the extent the preamble is limiting, McCullough in view of DeBono and Chung discloses [it], or at least renders [it] obvious.” Pet. 46. The preamble of claim 1 is written in Jepson form. “Jepson form allows a patentee to use the preamble to recite ‘elements or steps of the claimed invention which are conventional or known.’” Epcon Gas Sys. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Kegel Co. v. AMF Bowling, Inc., 127 F.3d 1420, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); see 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(e) (describing the structure of a Jepson claim). Because a Jepson claim “evidences the intention to use the preamble to define, in part, the structural elements of [a] claimed invention,” the Federal Circuit has held that a “preamble is a limitation in a Jepson-type claim.” Epcon Gas, 279 F.3d at 1029 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, we determine that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting and address it herein.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 8,548,645 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,548,645 - Veeam Software Corporation v. Hybir, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01040 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Field; the Board did not reach the alternative Strong and Field ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“As we noted in the Institution Decision, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art that was very similar to Petitioner’s proposal. Inst. Dec. 15 (citing Prelim. Resp. 28). On the preliminary record at that time, we found both parties’ proposals consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. Id. (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978)). And, on that record, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have “a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least three to five years of academic or industry experience in the fields of data storage, data backup, data restoration, data replication and deduplication, and/or data synchronization.” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“which states: “A method of synchronizing electronic data stored on a first client device with at least a second client device.” Ex. 1001, 19:8–9. Petitioner contends the preamble of claim 1 is not limiting because it states a purpose or intended use for the method recited and neither the term synchronizing nor the full preamble is referenced again in other claim elements. Pet. 10 (citing Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods, Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the preamble of claim 1 does not limit the scope of the claim. See Inst. Dec. 18–19. Patent Owner does not contest that preliminary determination in its Response and confirmed at the oral hearing that it does not contend the preamble is limiting. See generally PO Resp.; Tr. 107:15– 16 (confirming that Patent Owner does not assert the preamble is limiting). Accordingly, for the reasons explained in our Institution Decision and because the parties agree, we maintain our preliminary determination and reaffirm that the preamble of claim 1 is not limiting, and, therefore, we need not expressly construe it.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“unclear. Nonetheless, we find that Field teaches receiving a first “inventory” for the reasons explained by Petitioner and based on our construction of “inventory” at least because Field receives an itemized list of electronic data in the form of one or more signatures. Thus, since Field teaches an “inventory,” we do not agree with Patent Owner that Field teaches away from an “inventory.” Additionally, “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that, to teach away, the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Patent Owner, however, fails to identify, and we do not discern, any indication in Field that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from following Field’s teachings or modifying Field as proposed by Petitioner. Further, to this latter point, we do not discern any specific argument by Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Field as Petitioner proposes, aside from Patent Owner’s assertions of teaching away.22 Considering the complete record before us, for the reasons explained above we find that Petitioner has established that Field teaches or suggests limitation 1A.1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to modify Field as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 54
Patent outcomesUS 9,679,146 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,679,146 - Veeam Software Corporation v. Hybir, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01039 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Field and Anderson; claim 5 over Field, Anderson, and Ackerman; and claim 11 over Field, Anderson, and Coombs.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, we find that the complete record does not support” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“away and (2) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Field in light of potential inefficiencies. With respect to whether Field teaches away, Patent Owner’s argument is premised, in part, on a requirement derived from its proposed construction of “inventory”—that the claimed “inventory” must include additional data, such as filenames and directories. As discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction. Similar to Patent Owner’s earlier argument of a teaching away, Patent Owner fails to identify anything in Field that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from creating an inventory, as properly construed. Accordingly, we do not find that Field teaches away from using or creating an inventory.” slip op. at 69
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Weighing the Graham Factors On balance, considering the complete record before us, Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Field, Anderson, and Coombs would have rendered the subject matter of claim 11 of the ’545 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 99
Patent outcomesUS 9,037,545 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,037,545 - Walmart Inc. / Z-Shade Co., Ltd. et al. v. Caravan Canopy International, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00449 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Yang and Lynch because the combination teaches the claimed elements and increased headroom supplied a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“invention of the ’040 patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in the mechanical arts, including but not limited to mechanical engineering and industrial design, (2) at least two years of experience in the design or analysis of mechanical devices, fabricated frames, and/or kinematic linkages, and (3) at least a basic understanding of ergonomics. As to part (1), although the parties outline generally similar requirements as to formal schooling, Patent Owner’s proposal provides enhanced clarity as to the identity of the related disciplines, which we view as supported by the record. See, e.g., Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; Rake Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7–9, 19. As to part (2), the parties again outline similar requirements as to work experience, but Petitioner’s proposal provides added detail on experience in relevant design features, which we view as supported by the record. See Exs. 1004–1007. As to part (3), given the nature of the technology at issue, we view a basic understanding of ergonomics as relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:12–49 (discussing operation of the invention by a person); Rake Decl. ¶ 31, cited at PO Resp. 4. This is the same level of ordinary skill adopted in the Decision on Institution. See Dec. Inst. 32–34.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“centrally-disposed, long, slender object.” Pet. 28–32. Patent Owner responds that the District Court rejected this proposal and held that the phrase should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 5–6; see also Ex. 1018 at 6–10 (the District Court declining to construe “center pole”). We do not discern a need to construe explicitly this phrase because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“applicant acted as a lexicographer as to the term “stretching.” We determine that the Specification supports an understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning as extending or spreading out rather than as “make taut” or in “tension.” As argued by Petitioner, “[t]here is no description requiring that a roof be made taut or placed under tension” and, “[t]o the contrary, the specification consistently uses the word ‘stretch’ to describe extending or spreading out.” Pet. Reply 11. For example, in the eleven instances the Specification uses some form of the word “stretch” (aside from in claim 1), six instances relate to “stretching” the frame (or some component of the frame), rather than the roof. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:4–6 (discussing how “the collapsible tent frame of this invention is easily and quickly stretchable or collapsible, thus allowing a user to easily and quickly pitch or strike a tent” (emphasis added)), 3:15–19 (“When it is necessary to pitch the tent, the four side poles 10 are pushed outwardly at the same time, thus stretching the tent frame. When the side poles 10 are pushed outwardly as described above, the sliders 70 move upward along the side poles 10 while stretching the two 14 Under the same logic, Patent Owner’s construction of “stretching” as “make taut” should be rejected because it would render superfluous the “sustaining” requirement in that any “center pole” that makes taut a tent’s roof would also sustain it. Cf. PO Sur-reply 5. types of ribs 20 and 30.” (emphasis added)), 3:23–24 (discussing how “the center pole ribs 30 are fully stretched by the support links 40” (emphasis added)), 3:29–30 (discussing “[w]hen the tent is pitched with the frame being fully stretched as described above” (emphasis added)), 4:12–14 (“When the frame is stretched so as to pitch a tent, the center pole is fully moved upwardly along with the center pole ribs.” (emphasis added)). These instances do not align with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “stretching” as in “tension” or “make taut.” We find particularly supportive of the above-determined construction that in one of those six instances, the Specification directly contrasts—using a disjunctive “or”—“stretchable” with “collapsible.” See Ex. 1001, 3:4–6 (discussing how “the collapsible tent frame of this invention is easily and quickly stretchable or collapsible, thus allowing a user to easily and quickly pitch or strike a tent” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“On the full record developed at trial, we determine that the increased total ceiling height—i.e., “headroom” as used in the Petition—provides adequate “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” based on the proposed modification. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Here, the unmodified version of Yang is most similar to the middle example in Petitioner’s graphic above, as it has no structure underneath the tent roof (as roof support bars 7 and groove joints 6 are essentially at the height of the canopy itself). Compare Pet. Reply 20, with Ex. 1004, Fig. 4. The modified device—Yang modified with apex portion 50 of Lynch—is most similar to the rightmost example in Petitioner’s graphic, as the height of the canopy has been increased at least somewhat as compared to the middle example. See Pet. Reply 20; see also PO Resp. 24 (acknowledging that the proposed modification would “increase the height of the roof (the ceiling height)”). The record supports that this increased total ceiling height—even if only for certain locations where a person might stand—would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang based on Lynch as proposed. This determination is supported by the testimony of Dr. Klopp, who states that “[i]ncreased headroom in some places under a tent is desirable for stationary users, especially for users of above average height.” Klopp Reply Decl. ¶ 113, cited at Pet. Reply 19.” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 5,944,040 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 5,944,040 - Walmart Inc. / Z-Shade Co., Ltd. et al. v. Caravan Canopy International, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 22, 2021 · IPR2020-01026 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Yang and Lynch; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“We determine that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’040 patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in the mechanical arts, including but not limited to mechanical engineering and industrial design, (2) at least two years of experience in the design or analysis of mechanical devices, fabricated frames, and/or kinematic linkages, and (3) at least a basic understanding of ergonomics. As to part (1), although the parties outline generally similar requirements as to formal schooling, Patent Owner’s proposal provides enhanced clarity as to the identity of the related disciplines, which we view as supported by the record. See, e.g., Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; Rake Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7–9, 19. As to part (2), the parties again outline similar requirements as to work experience, but Petitioner’s proposal provides added detail on experience in relevant design features, which we view as supported by the record. See Exs. 1004–1007. As to part (3), given the nature of the technology at issue, we view a basic understanding of ergonomics as relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:12–49 (discussing operation of the invention by a person); Rake Decl. ¶ 31, cited at PO Resp. 4. This is the same level of ordinary skill adopted in the Decision on Institution. See Dec. Inst. 32–34.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “Center Pole” Petitioner proposes to construe “center pole” in element 1A as a “centrally-disposed, long, slender object.” Pet. 28–32. Patent Owner responds that the District Court rejected this proposal and held that the phrase should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 5–6; see also Ex. 1018 at 6–10 (the District Court declining to construe “center pole”). We do not discern a need to construe explicitly this phrase because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Under the claim construction standard applied in this proceeding, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). For the reasons below, we view the plain and ordinary meaning of “stretching” on the complete record here as extending or spreading out, in line with portions of Petitioner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“the context of its own invention, “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame,” it is important to note that the Figure 3 embodiment in Lynch includes Velcro fasteners 35 that secure side panel 18 of canopy covering 12 to corner support member 22. See id. at 6:60–64 (“As is shown in phantom in FIG. 3, canopy covering 12 has a side panel 18 which is additionally secured to a top portion of corner support member 22 by means of corresponding hook and loop fasteners, such as Velcro fasteners 35.”). The issue here is whether the “center pole” in the context of the modified device (which does not include Velcro fasteners configured as in Lynch) is “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame.”20 We determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that this requirement would be satisfied in the context of the modified device, even without Velcro fasteners. We first address whether the “center pole” in the modified device is “constructed for . . . sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame.” Petitioner states that after modifying roof bearing beam 8 in Yang to include apex portion 50 from Lynch, the “center pole” would “heighten and hold up the fabric tent roof” from Yang. Pet. 40 (citing Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 74–79). According to Petitioner, the proposed modification “would further push up the tent’s rooftop ‘to increase space for activities’ as well as creating more tension in the rooftop to reduce the risk of the rooftop ‘collapsing, bending, or leaking rainwater when raining.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 at 6–7; Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 77–79). We agree that the apex of the roof in Yang as modified by Lynch’s teachings would be higher than the 20 In the Reply, Petitioner seeks to rely on Lynch’s disclosure of using Velcro to attach the roof to the tent frame. See Pet. Reply 17 (bottom paragraph). As argued by Patent Owner, this is a new argument provided for the first time in reply. See PO Sur-reply 12–13; see also Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We see no error in the Board’s rejection of [a petitioner’s] reliance, in its Reply submissions, on previously unidentified portions of a prior-art reference to make a meaningfully distinct contention.”); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuide Consolidated (“TPG”) (“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). We do not consider Velcro fasteners as part of the modified device.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 5,944,040 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 5,944,040
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.