• Hulu, LLC / Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2020-00647 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable over Pyle and Marusi or Lewis and Marusi because each ground failed to establish a required claim limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we found that Petitioner’s proposal was consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position. Inst. Dec. 8–9 (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)). As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, we see no reason to disturb that finding. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in adaptive streaming and content management” or “a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in adaptive streaming or content management” and that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” See Inst. Dec. 7–9 (setting forth and adopting Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 9

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

    “the case law makes clear that “an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising’” unless an “extremely limited” exception applies. See Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 812 F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting KCJ Corp., 223 F.3d at 1356; Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Here, claim 1 recites the transitional phrase “comprising,” meaning it is open-ended, and, therefore, the usual meaning of “a” as “one or more” would have been expected absent an extremely limited exception. In considering whether an exception applies, our review of the ’720 patent fails to indicate that the patentee intended the phrase to mean anything other than the usual meaning of “one or more.” Patent Owner asserts that “‘[t]he plain language of the claim clearly indicates only a single [list] is used’ to list multiple assets” and quotes two portions of the Specification, which state “a list of assets that satisfies criteria” and “a list of assets to which a . . . device is granted access.” PO Sur-reply 15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:60–67) (citing Ex. 1001, 2:23–34, 3:1–5, 4:21–23, 17:59–66). Although claim 1 of the ’720 patent recites “assets” in the plural, we fail to see how that conveys that the term “a” would have been understood as limited to “one.” Notably, neither party has identified any inconsistency, in the claims or other portions of the Specification (including the portions quoted and/or cited by Patent Owner), resulting from construing “a” as “one or more.” And, we find that there is no reason why the claims could not be met under the construction of “a” as “one or more.” Thus, we find that the ’720 patent does not “evince [ ] a clear intent to limit a or an to one.” See Convolve, 812 F.3d at 1321 (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, we construe the term “a” in “a list of assets” as “one or more” such that the phrase “a list of assets” means “one or more list of assets.” Considering next the phrase “the list of assets” recited in limitation 1[d], the parties do not dispute that the use of the term “the” means that “the list of assets” refers back to the one or more list of assets retrieved in limitation 1[c] and discussed above. See PO Resp. 3–4; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. Similarly, the parties do not dispute that the phrase “the filtered list of assets,” recited in limitation 1[e], refers back to the list of assets resulting from the filtering step of limitation 1[d]. See PO Resp. 3–4; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. We agree with the parties that each of these phrases refers back to the previous instance of the recited terms.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Fundamentally, Petitioner fails to provide any reason in the Petition as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to retrieve a list of assets based on Lewis. Instead of providing a reason as to why retrieving a list of assets would have been obvious, Petitioner points to a result achieved by Lewis—generating a dynamic manifest file that contains a list of URLs to container files containing content. In the context before us, pointing to a result to allege that a step in a process leading to the result would have been obvious is insufficient without also providing a reason with rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). Here, Petitioner relies upon the result of Lewis’s process—generating a dynamic manifest file containing a list of URLs—as the only basis as to why a previous step in the claim would have been obvious without providing any reason why the achieved result means the previous step would have been obvious. Further, although Petitioner cites to Dr. Reader’s declaration (Ex. 1003 ¶ 233), Dr. Reader’s testimony does not provide any further explanation or reason as to why this aspect of limitation 1[c] would have been obvious.11 Rather, the Petition’s 11 To the extent Petitioner relies upon its discussion of the combined teachings of Lewis and Marusi as set forth at the beginning of Petitioner’s discussion of this ground (see Pet. 54–57), that portion of the Petition does not provide an additional reason why retrieving a list of assets as recited in discussion appears to be exactly the same as Dr. Reader’s testimony on this point. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to retrieve a list of assets in light of Lewis is not supported sufficiently on the record before us.” slip op. at 46

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)New argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In its Reply, Petitioner contends that “[c]ontrary to [Patent Owner’s] claim that Lewis does not teach a list and that there was no reason to modify Lewis’ system ([PO Resp.] 30–32), the Petition and Dr. Reader clearly explain why lists and database operations would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. Reply 19 (citing Pet. 62–63; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 237–239). Petitioner reiterates the position asserted in the Petition—that it would have been obvious to retrieve a list of assets because Lewis teaches that a dynamic manifest file contains a list of URLs to container files containing content. Id. Petitioner also contends that “Lewis itself explains that it was well-known that manifest files contain a list of media assets to be played.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 20 (noting that “Manifest Resp. 37–38 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 79). In its Reply, Petitioner responds to Patent Owner’s assertion by pointing to stored video segments 375 as assets, not just processed video segments 315a–c. Pet. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 230–231). In the Petition, Petitioner did not assert or rely upon stored video segments 375 as teaching the recited “assets” or “list of assets”; rather, Petitioner relied upon processed video segments 315a–c. See Pet. 62. Petitioner’s attempt to assert, for the first time, in its Reply that processed video segments 375 also teach the recited “assets” is an improper reply argument. See, e.g., Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 74, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (“Generally, a reply . . . may only respond to arguments raised in the preceding brief. . . . ‘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. . . . Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability . . . of an original . . . claim . . . .”); see PO Sur-reply 16–18 (discussing Petitioner’s new argument). Petitioner’s attempt to (1) rely upon stored video segments 375 to teach the recited assets and (2) assert that Lewis teaches, as opposed to rendering obvious, retrieving a list of assets are both new arguments that are inappropriately raised for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply and, therefore, we disregard them. file 257 includes entries 258a through 258f”), Fig. 2 (noting that Figure 2 shows entries pointing to video segments)).” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 9,270,720 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,270,720
• Netflix Inc. / Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00646 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13–15, 18, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable because Kaku was not established as analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot shown unpatentableNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference is considered analogous prior art: (1) if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter, or (2) if “the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” even though the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. The field of endeavor test asks if the structure and function of the prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed invention. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325–27. A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for three claim terms, including the term “trick play functionality.” Pet. 22–23. Patent Owner argues for construction of the related claim term “the first and second indexes enabling trick play functionality.” See PO Resp. 41–49. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any of those claim terms because construction of the proposed terms does not impact our determination that Petitioner has not shown that one of the prior art references is analogous to the claimed invention. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedNot reached

    “Under the particular circumstances in this case, we need not assess the merits of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. As discussed above, we have determined that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance that Kaku is analogous prior art to the ’792 patent and do not reach Petitioner’s arguments on the motivation to combine Kaku with Zetts or Seo. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 34

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “As discussed above (supra § III.E.4.a), Petitioner’s papers fail to link Dr. Reader’s declaration testimony on the level of ordinary skill in the art to the analogous art inquiry and fail to identify a field of endeavor for the ’792 patent. We therefore agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s demonstrative slide 53 presents improper new arguments that have not been previously made. See Paper 38, 2 (“The parties may only rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only present arguments that have been previously made in the submitted papers. No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the hearing.”), 5 (“Demonstratives are not a mechanism for making new arguments.”). We therefore sustain Patent Owner’s objections. We note, however, that demonstratives are not evidence. See id. at 5 (“Demonstrative exhibits used at the hearing are not evidence, nor will they be relied upon as evidence. Rather, demonstratives are visual aids to a party’s oral presentation regarding arguments and evidence previously presented and discussed in the papers”); CTPG 84 (“Demonstrative exhibits used at the final hearing are aids to oral argument and not evidence.”). In this Final Written Decision, we rely solely on the arguments properly presented in the parties’ briefs and the evidence of record, not on the demonstratives.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,472,792 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,472,792
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 13, 2021 · IPR2020-00511 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–12, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable under the three § 103 grounds because the combinations did not establish the encrypted-frame limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in video encryption and cryptography or . . . a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in video encryption and cryptography.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67). Patent Owner does not address, expressly, the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. See generally PO Resp. Dr. Nielson, however, applies Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in his Declaration (Ex. 2009 ¶ 34) and does not indicate that he does otherwise in his Second Declaration (see generally Ex. 2024). In our Institution Decision, we found that Petitioner’s proposal was consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position. Inst. Dec. 10 (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)). As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, we see no reason to disturb that finding. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in video encryption and cryptography or . . . a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in video encryption and cryptography.” See Inst. Dec. 9–10 (finding the same).” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner contends that “the challenged claims are invalid under their plain and ordinary (‘P&O’) meaning.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 99). In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner raised the meaning of two claim terms—“user encryption key” and “content encryption key.” Prelim. Resp. 40–44, 46–48. In the Institution Decision, we addressed each term to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy presented, and we found, in each instance, that Petitioner’s mapping of the prior art to these limitations of the claims was sufficient on the record presented at the time. See Inst. Dec. 12– 15 (discussing the construction of the terms), 22–28 (discussing limitation 1[a], which includes “user encryption key”), 28–31 (discussing limitation 1[b], which includes “content encryption key”). In particular, on the preliminary record, we found that “Chen’s master key Kw teaches the recited ‘user encryption key’” (id. at 28) and “Chen’s work key Kw teaches the recited ‘content encryption key’” (id. at 30). In the Response, Patent Owner does not propose a construction for any claim term or contest our preliminary findings regarding limitations 1[a] and 1[b]. See generally PO Resp. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm our preliminary determinations regarding the meaning of the recited “user encryption key” and “content encryption key.” Dec. 12–15. Additionally, we need not construe other claim terms to resolve the present controversy before us.6” slip op. at 13

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

    “techniques, and standards in the industry regarding the same in an attempt to explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Chen at the time of the ’920 patent. As discussed herein, the weight of the evidence is very closely balanced. Fundamentally, however, it is Petitioner’s burden to establish how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Chen and the combined teachings of Chen and Grab-333. And, as we find herein based on the full record developed during trial, Petitioner does not establish that the combined teachings of Chen and Grab-333 would have met limitation 1[c]. Below, we walk through the parties’ arguments and evidence, starting with the Petition, and then we discuss our findings regarding Chen in light of the full trial record.” slip op. at 24

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “To begin, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) specifies, in relevant part, that “[a] sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply and may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). The Consolidated TPG repeats the above-quoted language of the rule and also explains that [s]ur-replies should only respond to arguments made in reply briefs, comment on reply declaration testimony, or point to cross-examination testimony. As noted above, a sur-reply may address the institution decision if necessary to respond to the petitioner’s reply. This sur-reply practice essentially replaces the previous practice of filing observations on cross-examination testimony. Consolidated TPG at 73–74. Accordingly, Rule 42.23(b) provides a blanket prohibition on a patentee filing exhibits with a sur-reply, as Patent Owner has done here.” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 9,184,920 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,184,920
• Facebook, Inc. v. Thaddeus GabaraInstitution denied
  PTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00200 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied on all challenged claims because the petition did not show that Kim, alone or in combination, disclosed or suggested the required stationary map.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “For the following reasons, we find Patent Owner’s assertions have merit because Petitioner has not carried its burden of showing Kim discloses or suggests a background image of a stationary map, which is a necessary limitation in each of the challenged independent claims. Because this deficiency is dispositive and leads us to the conclusion that the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’545 patent, our discussion below focuses on Petitioner’s contentions regarding Kim’s disclosure of a stationary map.” slip op. at 12

  • Other 314aNot reached

    “V. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner contends that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Prelim. Resp. 3–12. Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s argument. See Paper 12 (Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request to File Preliminary Replies to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses), 3 (noting that Petitioner requested authorization to file a preliminary reply to respond to Patent Owner’s argument regarding discretionary denial under § 314(a)). Because we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that at least one claim of the ’545 patent is unpatentable, we need not reach the issue of discretionary denial pursuant to § 314(a).” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’545 patent and the prior art of record, see 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, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). At this stage of the proceeding, the parties agree that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 28. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,545
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01613 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–3 and 5–15 unpatentable over Milewski, or claims 1–3, 7–9, and 12 obvious over Milewski and Heijden.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “analysis. Petitioner maps the action message shown in Milewski’s Figure 4 to the recited “formatted message” (see, e.g., Pet. 32 (“Figure 4 shows an exemplary screen display of an action message (the ‘formatted message’) presented to the recipient at the receiver communication station.”)), while also mapping Figure 4 to the recited “response message” (see, e.g., id. at 37 (identifying Figure 4 as the “completed reply form (response message)”)). Milewski describes Figure 4 as both the action message and reply form. Compare Ex. 1007, 7:38–39 (“FIG. 4 is a screen of the action message 400 displayed by the controller at the recipient’s station.” (emphasis added)), with id. at 9:11–15 (“In an operation 803, the controller renders the action message body in a reply form shown in FIG. 4 to the recipient using standard World Wide Web protocols and processes (HyperText Transaction Protocols-HTTP; HyperText Mark Up Language-HTML).” (emphasis added)). Milewski appears to explain the basis for its terminology by stating that “[t]hroughout the description, structured responses may also be classified as an ‘action message’ as more descriptive of the reply sought by a sender.” See id. at 5:56–59. The problem Patent Owner identifies with Petitioner’s analysis, however, is that Petitioner fails to explain where Milewski indicates copying information from the action message to the reply form when the action message and reply form appear to be the same. In support of its argument regarding copying, Petitioner cites to column 7, lines 44 through 52, of Milewski. That section states the following: Upon marking the selected response, the recipient completes the response to the action message. In the present instance, the recipient has marked the “other” response and provides text in a field 408 as a response to the text in field 402. A field 410 is available for additional comments which the sender authorized to be entered by checking the field 212 in template 200. In this case, the recipient has chosen not to provide any additional comments. Ex. 1007, 7:44–52. We find that there is nothing in this section that expressly supports Petitioner’s contention that information is copied from the action message to the reply form, especially in light of Milewski’s indication that the action message is the reply form. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would view this passage as describing the alleged copying.” slip op. at 29

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededNot reached

    “The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Petitioner contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 3–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Mr. Andrews’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience in the fields of messaging systems, and wireless communication devices, or an equivalent advanced education in the field of messaging systems, including wireless communication devices. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art” for purposes of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record, see 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, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

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

    “analysis. Petitioner maps the action message shown in Milewski’s Figure 4 to the recited “formatted message” (see, e.g., Pet. 32 (“Figure 4 shows an exemplary screen display of an action message (the ‘formatted message’) presented to the recipient at the receiver communication station.”)), while also mapping Figure 4 to the recited “response message” (see, e.g., id. at 37 (identifying Figure 4 as the “completed reply form (response message)”)). Milewski describes Figure 4 as both the action message and reply form. Compare Ex. 1007, 7:38–39 (“FIG. 4 is a screen of the action message 400 displayed by the controller at the recipient’s station.” (emphasis added)), with id. at 9:11–15 (“In an operation 803, the controller renders the action message body in a reply form shown in FIG. 4 to the recipient using standard World Wide Web protocols and processes (HyperText Transaction Protocols-HTTP; HyperText Mark Up Language-HTML).” (emphasis added)). Milewski appears to explain the basis for its terminology by stating that “[t]hroughout the description, structured responses may also be classified as an ‘action message’ as more descriptive of the reply sought by a sender.” See id. at 5:56–59. The problem Patent Owner identifies with Petitioner’s analysis, however, is that Petitioner fails to explain where Milewski indicates copying information from the action message to the reply form when the action message and reply form appear to be the same. In support of its argument regarding copying, Petitioner cites to column 7, lines 44 through 52, of Milewski. That section states the following: Upon marking the selected response, the recipient completes the response to the action message. In the present instance, the recipient has marked the “other” response and provides text in a field 408 as a response to the text in field 402. A field 410 is available for additional comments which the sender authorized to be entered by checking the field 212 in template 200. In this case, the recipient has chosen not to provide any additional comments. Ex. 1007, 7:44–52. We find that there is nothing in this section that expressly supports Petitioner’s contention that information is copied from the action message to the reply form, especially in light of Milewski’s indication that the action message is the reply form. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would view this passage as describing the alleged copying.” slip op. at 29

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Coffee, alone or with Heijden, rendered any challenged claim unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’308 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededNot reached

    “The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Petitioner contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 2–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art” for purposes of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record, see 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, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “analysis. Even if we assume that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious “field-mapping information for indicating information to be copied from said formatted message to a response message,”7 Petitioner has not shown that it is “based on which one of said pre-defined formatted messages was received.” Rather, whatever information Coffee may copy appears to be the same from each formatted message (as shown in Petitioner’s comparison of 7 For purposes of this Decision, we need not decide whether Coffee in fact discloses or renders obvious this recitation of claim 1. Coffee’s Tables 58 and 63) and not based on which pre-defined formatted message was received.8 Additionally, Petitioner’s alternative arguments as to whether Coffee discloses (explicitly or inherently) and/or renders obvious field-mapping information that is stored on the MDT do not address the specific deficiency identified above and do not provide an alternative basis for finding that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious field-mapping information for indicating information to be copied from said formatted message to a response message based on which one of said pre-defined formatted messages was received. See Pet. 33–35 (discussing explicit, inherent, and obvious alternatives). Accordingly, based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious limitation 1d.” slip op. at 29

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 8, 2021 · IPR2019-01379 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 17 were not shown unpatentable over Kim and Huang because Petitioner did not establish an adequate motivation to combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in image and/or video processing.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 42). Patent Owner neither comments on that proposal, nor proposes an alternative level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. 5 The burden of showing something by a preponderance of the evidence requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). Because Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art, we apply it for purposes of this Decision. In our view, moreover, the prior art itself demonstrates the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that prior art itself can reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art at the time of the invention).” slip op. at 9

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

    “00052, which also involves the ’651 patent, the Board construed the term “level of detail” as “level of change of visual elements across adjacent pixels,” and that the same construction should apply here. PO Resp. 58–60 (citing IPR2020-00052, Paper 42). Petitioner does not propose a construction for that term, but argues that “the combined Kim and Huang teachings would determine the level of detail for adjacent pixels under Patent Owner’s ‘adjacent pixels’ construction.” Pet. Reply 5–11. Because our ultimate decision does not rest on the construction of that claim term, we do not construe the term in this proceeding. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). As part of our obviousness analysis, we address additional claim construction arguments regarding the “determining” limitation. See infra § III.E.1.a.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that these exhibits represent expressions of opinion of unnamed users that Patent Owner relies on to show cotemporaneous praise existed. These exhibits are cited in the Hanson Declaration only as evidence of industry praise, i.e., to support testimony based on his personal knowledge. See Ex. 2045 ¶ 51. And although Mr. Hanson quotes statements from these exhibits in his declaration, their relevance lies in that they allegedly reflect praise for DivX’s deblocking method. For example, the statement by user “temperance”—that Petitioner objects to as being relied on for the truth of the matter asserted (Paper 46, 1– 2)—is offered to show that “[t]here was plenty of healthy debate on the boards about the quality of the new version of the codec,” and “many commenters specifically praised the deblocking.” See Ex. 2045 ¶ 46. Moreover, it is clear that these are merely opinions of online users, not factual assertions. See id. (quoting temperance: “IMHO, DivX 6 deblocking is better (for metrics and eyes) than xvid’s”) (emphasis added); see Sonos, slip op. at 7 (separating admissible expressions of opinions that constitute praise from bare factual assertions). Other statements that Petitioner objects to (Paper 46, 2) are similarly opinions of online users, not factual assertions that Patent Owner relies upon for the truth of the matter stated therein. We are therefore not persuaded that Exhibits 2018–2030 and 2032–2033 contain inadmissible hearsay.11 See Cisco Sys., Paper 41 at 50–51 (allowing exhibits cited only as evidence of industry praise); Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., IPR2018-00255, 2020 WL 2595492, at *2 (PTAB May 21, 2020) (citing Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc., 13-CV-00457-JST, 2014 WL 12644295, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2014)).” slip op. at 55

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not detail Petitioner’s newly proposed interpretation of this claim limitation. See Pet. 29–36 (arguing only that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Kim determines the level of detail for a region comprising an 8 x 8 block of pixels of a reconstructed video frame). On the contrary, the Petition argued: [T]he prior art cited in this Petition teaches and suggests exactly what is claimed and what allegedly distinguished the claims from Kim II: determining the level of detail of a region that includes pixels from multiple rows and multiple columns that encompass pixels immediately adjacent to at least two sides of the block boundary, and selecting a filter to apply.” Pet. 18 (emphasis added).6 Under these circumstances, we consider Petitioner’s new argument waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ 6 Petitioner refers to a different prior art reference, U.S. Patent No. 6,983,079, cited by the examiner during the prosecution of the ’651 patent, as Kim II. the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’”) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,139,651 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,139,651
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2021 · IPR2019-01195 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13 and 14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kim; claims 17, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Kim and Lee because the proposed combination was inadequately explained.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “’026 patent would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, plus at least two years of experience in integrated circuit design, or alternatively a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of experience in integrated circuit design. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 49). In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see 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, therefore, preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 15. Neither Patent Owner, in its Response, nor Dr. Annavaram, in his declaration, proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, Patent Owner states that “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s stated skill level for this response” (PO Resp. 26), and Dr. Annavaram similarly states that “[f]or the purpose of this declaration, I adopt Dr. Harris’ definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” (Ex. 2009 ¶ 24). Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Based on the complete record, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, plus at least two years of experience in integrated circuit design, or alternatively a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of experience in integrated circuit design. Inst. Dec. 15; see Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 49).” slip op. at 10

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

    “To the extent Patent Owner argues that these particularized selection clauses recited in different claims must have the same or similar meaning because they all use the word “selecting” (see PO Resp. 28–29), we disagree with Patent Owner. See IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We caution that claim language must be construed in the context of the claim in which it appears. Extracting a single word from a claim divorced from the surrounding limitations can lead construction astray. Claim language must be construed in the claim in which it appears.” (emphasis added)). The selection clauses recited in these claims are plainly different on the face of the claims when considering the material differences in the claim language set forth above. According the same meaning to the limitations that recite “select . . . based on” indicators, “select . . . when” certain conditions are met, and “select . . . out of a group” of values would be improper because it would blur the material differences in the claim language recited expressly in the claims. Instead, we interpret the selection clauses recited in the challenged claims “in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears” and “in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. In other words, we do not construe the single word “selecting” in isolation, but, rather, interpret the full selection clauses recited in the challenged claims in the context of the entire patent. Claim 13 recites “selecting, by the control circuit, a value of a control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator.” In our view, the plain meaning of this limitation is clear on the face of the claim—a value of a control signal is selected based on two indicators, the mode indicator and the leakage indicator.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Tr. 47:7–23. Because the output of Kim’s NAND gates will be different depending on the value of Kim’s memory cells C1–CN allowed to “pass through,” we agree with Petitioner that the value of Kim’s memory cells C1– CN (the claimed “leakage indicator”) “plays a role” in deciding what the output of Kim’s NAND gates (the claimed “value of the control signal”) will be. Moreover, Patent Owner acknowledged that the output of Kim’s NAND gate is determined based on the inputs to the NAND gates (i.e., the sleep signal input and the memory cell signal input). JUDGE CHUNG: But, knowing a little bit about how a NAND gate works, isn’t it the case that the input to the NAND gates, G1 through GN, with the input of the sleep signal and the C1 through CN signal, isn’t it the case that input to the NAND gate determines what the output is? MS. ZHONG: Okay. So any logic gate, the output will depend on the input. That’s for sure. Tr. 44:18–25; but see id. at 45:3–10 (stating that even if the “output is in control of the input, . . . that does not mean the selection is based on that input”). Thus, we find that Kim’s NAND gate (the claimed “control circuit”) operates to determine its output (the claimed “value of the control signal”) based on its input of the sleep signal (the claimed “mode indicator”) and the memory cell value input (the claimed “leakage indicator”). As discussed in Section III.B, the Specification indicates that “select[ing] the value of the control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator” recited in claim 13 is synonymous to determining the value based on the recited indicators. See Ex. 1101, 4:4–11. Thus, the evidence of record shows that Kim teaches “selecting, by the control circuit, a value of a control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator,” as recited in claim 13.” slip op. at 44

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

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence. First, although Petitioner proposes “[s]ubstituting Lee’s inputs of leakage current and temperature for generating a power gate control signal” (i.e., Lee’s “control signal (BIAS)”) for “Kim’s inputs of leakage current and other ‘stimuli’ for generating a power gate control signal” (Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 115)), neither Petitioner nor Dr. Harris explains adequately how they are proposing to “substitute” Kim’s control signal with Lee’s “control signal (BIAS).” For example, Figure A reproduced above does not show how Petitioner or Dr. Harris proposes to use Lee’s “control signal (BIAS)” in the proposed combination. Petitioner asserts that “[a]lthough Lee’s control signal is analog and Kim’s control signal is digital, it was well known to apply teachings in an analog domain to a digital domain, and conversions between analog and digital domains were easy to implement.” Pet. 66 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 121; Ex. 1115). Dr. Harris similarly states that Figures A and B show examples of obvious ways to use in Kim’s system Lee’s teaching of setting conductance of the array based on temperature. A POSA would have found both of these ways obvious. That Lee uses an analog control signal and Kim uses a digital control signal would have presented no obstacle to a POSA. . . . That is, converting analog circuit elements and signals to digital was well known long before the ’026 patent. Ex. 1102 ¶ 121 (emphases added) (citing (Ex. 1115) (“Analog-to-digital converters (ADC’s) are ubiquitous, critical components of software radio and other signal processing systems.”)). But Dr. Harris does not explain adequately how “to use in Kim’s system” the digitized BIAS signal of Lee. See id. The only additional input signal shown in Figure A compared to Figure 4 of Kim is the temperature line that has the value of 0 when the temperature is cold and the value of 1 when the temperature is hot. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 116 (Fig. A). There is no explanation of how the modified teaching of the BIAS signal of Lee (i.e., modified or converted to a digital signal) would have worked in the proposed combination of Figure A.” slip op. at 69

  Patent outcomesUS 8,081,026 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,081,026
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 26, 2020 · IPR2018-01661 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 15, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to establish the claimed power gain and power loss relationship used to determine whether to power down.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Raghunathan, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’014 patent “would have had at least an M.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience), and would have three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 57–58). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal with a modification to the level of education based on Patent Owner’s proposal in its Preliminary Response. Inst. Dec. 7 (citing Prelim. Resp. 5). Specifically, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” Id. Neither party argues during trial that our definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. See PO Resp. 2–3. See generally Pet. Reply. Because our preliminary determination is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We need only construe claim terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In this proceeding, neither party proposes a formal construction for any term. See Pet. 23; PO Resp. 3. We find it unnecessary to construe expressly any claim terms to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence on the complete record now before us, we find Petitioner has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Takahashi’s “predetermined value” to be an estimated power gain. Patent Owner, with the support of Dr. Wolfe’s credible testimony, persuasively argues that Takahashi’s “predetermined value” is a previous value of the cache-miss rate. Petitioner, on the other hand, does not point to anything in Takahashi that describes the “predetermined value” as an estimated power gain, nor does Petitioner cite any testimony from Dr. Raghunathan in support of its position other than a portion of his declaration that is substantially the same as the discussion in the Petition. See Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 80); see also Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 72– 80 (testimony substantially the same as pages 29–34 of the Petition). Without any suggestion in Takahashi that the “predetermined value” relates to an estimated power gain, Takahashi’s stated goal of reducing power consumption is not sufficient to show that Takahashi’s “predetermined value” is representative of an estimated power gain. For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has not established that Takahashi teaches or suggests an estimated power gain or determining whether to power down a portion of a device component in response to a relationship between an estimated power gain and an estimated power loss, as recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over the teachings of Takahashi.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We focus on one argument we find particularly persuasive—that Hu does not teach using the L2Access:leak ratio to “determin[e] whether to power down” a cache or a portion of a cache, as required by claim 1, even if the L2Access:leak ratio can be considered a relationship between an estimated power gain and an estimated power loss. See PO Resp. 24; PO Sur-reply 16–18. In its Reply, Petitioner alleges that “Hu explicitly discloses using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine when to power down the L1 cache.” Pet. Reply 16 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97–98). Petitioner, however, does not support this proposition by quoting or citing specific language in Hu, relying only on Dr. Raghunathan’s declaration, which provides substantially the same discussion as the Petition. Compare Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97–98, with Pet. 39–40. We agree with Patent Owner that the portion of Hu cited in the Petition and Dr. Raghunathan’s declaration does not teach using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine whether to power down the L1 cache, as Petitioner contends. See PO Sur-reply 16–18; Pet. 39–41; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97– 99. Rather, Hu discloses determining values of the normalized cache leakage energy for different decay intervals at four values of the L2Access:leak ratio—5, 10, 20, and 100. Ex. 1104, 175–76; see PO Sur-reply 17. Hu uses these assumed values of the L2Access:leak ratio as inputs to generate simulation data, not to determine whether to power down a cache or portion of a cache. Ex. 1104, 175, see PO Resp. 24; PO Sur-Reply 15–16. Petitioner argues that Hu teaches that the higher the L2Access:leak ratio, the longer the system should wait before powering down the cache. Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 16–17. Hu, however, does not expressly compare the effect of different L2Access:leak ratios other than to state that when the L2Access:leak ratio is 100, a small decay interval is detrimental to performance and power. Ex. 1104, 175. As Patent Owner correctly asserts, Hu does not describe using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine an appropriate decay interval, nor does Hu describe using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine whether to power down a portion of a cache. See PO Sur-Reply 17–18.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 8,020,014 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,020,014
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 12, 2020 · IPR2018-01040 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 10, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not teach or support adding the separately claimed third voltage reference.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentDenied

    “We agree with Patent Owner that we should not address the patentability of claim 9 in this Decision. See PO Resp. 63–64. Rather, following Federal Circuit case law, we treat claim 9 as if it never existed. See Gunn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“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.”). Consistent with other Board decisions in which some, but not all, challenged claims have been disclaimed after institution, we address the patentability only of the remaining claims. See LG Elecs., Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., IPR2018-00673, Paper 48 at 3 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2019) (Final Written Decision); Yamaha Golf Car, Paper 63 at 3; Baker Hughes, Paper 74 at 6, 11–12. We also agree with Patent Owner that we should not enter adverse judgment as to claim 9. See PO Sur-reply 26–27. Arthrex, the case relied on by Petitioner, does not mandate a different outcome. By its terms, 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2) permits disclaimer to be construed as a request for adverse action when there are “no remaining claim[s] in the trial.” That was the situation in Arthrex. 880 F.3d at 1347 (“Arthrex, Inc. disclaimed all claims that were the subject of the petition.”). Here, in contrast, several claims remain in the trial. Furthermore, Arthrex does not support Petitioner’s patent are disclaimed.” Pet. Reply 27. The Arthrex language quoted by Petitioner compares disclaimer of an “entire patent” under § 42.73(b)(1) with disclaimer of “some of the claims” of the patent (i.e., fewer than all claims in the patent but all challenged claims so there are no remaining claims in the trial) under § 42.73(b)(2). 880 F.3d at 1350. Neither situation is present here when only one claim (claim 9) has been disclaimed and several challenged claims (claims 1–4, 10, 12, and 13) remain in the trial.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’207 patent “would have had at least a[n] M.S. degree in electrical engineering and would have at least two years of experience with circuit design.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32). In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the asserted prior art and adopted Petitioner’s position, which Patent Owner did not oppose in the Preliminary Response. Inst. Dec. 14 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Neither Patent Owner, in its Response, nor Dr. Ipek, in his declaration, proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Ipek, however, states that “[f]or purposes of the subject IPR proceedings, I have been asked to employ [Petitioner’s proposed] standard of a person of ordinary skill, but I do not offer the opinion that it is the correct standard.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 19. Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary determination is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one least an M.S. degree in electrical engineering and at least two years of experience with circuit design. See Inst. Dec. 14; Pet. 17.” slip op. at 18

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

    “the complete record developed during this inter partes review, we again conclude that the “third voltage reference” must be separate from the “second voltage reference.” We begin with the language of claim 1, which recites a first voltage reference, a second voltage reference, and a third voltage reference as separate elements.7 “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The terms “first,” “second,” and “third” are terms used to distinguish separate elements of a claim. See Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The use of the terms ‘first’ and ‘second’ is a common patent-law convention to distinguish between repeated instances of an element or limitation.”). Although Gillette and 3M address whether such terms impose a numerical or serial limitation, they nevertheless support Patent Owner’s position that enumerated elements typically are not construed to be the same element. See Sur-reply 11–12. Other cases cited by Patent Owner also support its position. See id. at 12 (citing Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 935–39 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (construing “first” and “second” disks as separate and discrete disks); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1405) (Fed. Cir. 1996)” slip op. at 21

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art would have sought to reduce power consumption in Takahashi to address the well-known problem of current leakage, and that providing a separate voltage reference for transistor 223 in Takahashi’s Figure 15 (i.e., a third voltage reference) would have achieved that goal. Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 88). But the only evidence Petitioner relies on for adding the proposed third voltage reference is the testimony of Dr. Stojanovic. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 88). Without any additional supporting evidence, Dr. Stojanovic’s testimony is insufficient to supply the missing “third voltage reference,” which is a key limitation of claim 1. See K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 36 (Nov. 2019)9 (“[I]n an obviousness analysis, conclusory assertions from a third party about general knowledge in the art cannot, without supporting evidence of record, supply a limitation that is not evidently and indisputably within the common knowledge of those skilled in the art. . . . In other words, expert testimony may explain ‘patents and publications,’ but is not a substitute for disclosure in a prior art reference itself.” (citing K/S Himpp, 751 F.3d at 1365)); see also Inst. Dec. 30–31 (reaching the same conclusion on the preliminary record). Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 7,706,207 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,706,207

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.