- Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00988 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–30 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence, based on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“ORDER21 Upon consideration of the record before us, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 45) is denied; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 46) is denied;” slip op. at 82
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“1. “troubled wakefulness” Dependent claims 12 and 22 each recite, “wherein the awake state is a” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“not implicitly define the phrase “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns,” as proposed, because Patent Owner has failed to show any sufficient evidence that the ’009 patent clearly expresses an intent to redefine the phrase or define the phrase in terms other than its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, implied lexicography does not apply here. Accordingly, after reviewing Patent Owner’s contentions in light of all the evidence of record, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction; instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns” in our consideration of the issues before us.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 9,108,009 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,108,009 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 24, 2023 · IPR2022-00721 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–19, 21–33, 35–43, 45–50, and 52–62 are unpatentable as obvious over Youtsey, Lionetto, and Horak; the Board did not reach the Tarrant and Bell ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Dickens, opines that a person having ordinary” slip op. at 13
- BurdenUnpatentable
“(viii) Weighing of Evidence and Conclusion as to Obviousness Youtsey anticipates the claimed invention except that its sealing” slip op. at 97
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“(6) Analysis and Conclusion as to Motivation to Modify Youtsey Having considered and balanced the prior art for all that it teaches,” slip op. at 90
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, Patent Owner’s first objective indicia argument is” slip op. at 95
Patent outcomesUS 9,225,083 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,225,083 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00719 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8–15, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Youtsey, Lionetto, and Horak; the Board did not reach the alternative Tarrant and Bell ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“in that neither party proposes constructions for any specific claim terms. See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. Accordingly, based on our review of the complete record, we maintain and reaffirm that no explicit construction of any claim term is needed to resolve the issues presented by the parties and resolved in this Decision. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelOther
“G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Dickens’ testimony, proposes that a” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“(f) Analysis and Conclusion as to Motivation to Modify Youtsey Having considered and balanced the prior art for all that it teaches,” slip op. at 89
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, Patent Owner’s first objective indicia argument is unavailing. Petitioner’s Patent Application Patent Owner argues that Petitioner, in its own U.S. Patent Application No. 13/530,831 (see Ex. 2013, “the ’831 Application”) filed several years after the ’983 patent’s priority date, took positions contrary to and belying Petitioner’s positions in this proceeding. See PO Resp. 2, 71–73. In particular, according to Patent Owner, the ’831 Application “included claims directed to the same coupler-body grounding member/path limitations at issue here,” demonstrating that “five of Petitioner’s own inventors (i.e., [persons of ordinary skill in the art]) understood that a coupler-body grounding member/path was patentable.” Id. (citing Ex. 2013, code (57), Figs. 4, 5, ¶¶ 3, 5, 14, 18, claim 1; Ex. 2014, 4:6–14; Ex. 2015, 3– 6; Ex. 2016, 2); PO Sur-reply 3; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 190–199. Patent Owner cites Andersen Corp. v. Pella Corp., 300 F. App’x 893, 899–900 (Fed. Cir. 2008), as “finding statements made in the accused infringer’s own patent applications provided objective evidence that the challenged claims were not obvious.” PO Resp. 73. Petitioner in reply points out that the original claims of the ’831 Application were rejected by the Examiner, and the claims were not allowed until they were amended “to require the grounding member to be ‘exposed outside of the connector body,’ supporting that other features attribute to the non-obviousness of [Petitioner’s] claimed invention.” Pet. Reply 19–20; see Ex. 2014, 3:35–4:15 (issued claim 1 from the ’831 Application). Petitioner distinguishes the Andersen decision cited by Patent Owner as involving “long-felt need, the failure of others, unexpected results, copying, and praise by others,” none of which are present here. Pet. Reply 20. Patent Owner replies that the Examiner’s rejection in the ’831 Application “fails to change the fact that Petitioner’s own inventors thought that the original claims were nonobvious.” PO Sur-reply 3. Patent Owner additionally notes that the “rejection was based on a parent patent to the ’983 [p]atent,” which Patent Owner argues “confirm[s] that Petitioner’s inventors were trying to patent the same claimed invention believing it to be patentable.” Id. (citing Ex. 2015, 4–5).” slip op. at 94
Patent outcomesUS 10,446,983 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,446,983 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00718 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 10–17, 20, and 21 are unpatentable as obvious over Youtsey, Lionetto, and Horak; the Board did not reach the Tarrant and Bell ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Dickens’ testimony, proposes that a” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“in that neither party proposes constructions for any specific claim terms. See generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. Accordingly, based on our review of the complete record, we maintain and reaffirm that no explicit construction of any claim term is needed to resolve the issues presented by the parties and resolved in this Decision. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
Patent outcomesUS 10,965,063 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,965,063 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00720 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 29–33, 36–43, and 46 are unpatentable as obvious over Youtsey, Lionetto, and Horak; the Board did not reach the Tarrant and Bell ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Dickens, opines that a person having ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’284 patent would have had either: (1) “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering, or a related field, and three to four years of industry experience”; or (2) “a master’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering, or a related field, and one to two years of industry experience.” Pet. 9; Ex. 1005 ¶ 11; Ex. 1026 ¶ 270. Dr. Dickens adds that this person “also would have been familiar with coaxial cables and connectors and/or the components and underlying technology used therein.” Pet. 9; Ex. 1005 ¶ 11. Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Eldering, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering and several years of experience in the cable and telecommunications industry relating to the design, manufacture, or utilization of coaxial cable connectors in communications systems.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 27; Ex. 2042 ¶ 213. Dr. Eldering further opines that “[b]achelor’s degrees in engineering require basic coursework in physics and mechanics, and experience in the cable and telecommunications industry will result in use of the knowledge obtained in those courses as applied to particular engineering problems which occur with coaxial cable connectors.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 27. Dr. Eldering also states that “[a]lthough [his] definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] differs slightly from that offered by Dr. Dickens, adoption of [Dr. Dickens’] definition would not change any of the analysis or opinions offered” by Dr. Eldering. Id. ¶ 29. In the Institution Decision, we concluded that the differences in the levels of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Drs. Dickens and Eldering are insubstantial and do not impact the analysis of the issues presented. See Inst. Dec. 25–26. Patent Owner agrees with that conclusion. See PO Resp. 15. Petitioner does not address this issue in its post-institution briefing.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyOther
“proposed both for maintaining electrical continuity across the structure, and for excluding from the interior of the device such contaminates as moisture and dust.” Ex. 2035, 2:4–21 (emphases added). Bunyan describes various structural configurations for such gaskets (see id. at 2:22–30), and then discusses how such gaskets “exhibit a number of problems in actual use” (id. at 2:31–45) such that “it is frequently the case that gaskets providing satisfactory EMI shielding capabilities are unable to provide environmental sealing, thereby causing corrosion problems” (id. at 2:46–51). “As a result, the EMI shielding and environmental sealing functions have typically been seen as two separate functions requiring two separate products.” Id. at 2:51–60. Bunyan accordingly provides “an EMI gasket having both enhanced resistance to corrosion and a reduction in the compressive forces required to form a seal between adjacent surfaces in circumstances where both sealing and EMI shielding are required.” Id. at 5:3–10 (emphasis added); see also id. at Figs. 3–4, 5:51–63, 6:16–54, 7:4–12 (Bunyan’s gasket comprises a rod-shaped conductive elastomeric polymer 5 having rib sections 6, and a non-conductive polymer gel 7 disposed between the ribs to provide sealing). Thus, although Bunyan recognizes there are challenges in designing a gasket to provide both an environmental seal and a conductive pathway, there are ways to overcome these challenges. 11 Bunyan may not be prior art to the ’284 patent. See Ex. 1001, code (63); Ex. 2035, code (60). Patent Owner nonetheless argues Bunyan supports its arguments here, so we address it accordingly.” slip op. at 70
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“(6) Analysis and Conclusion as to Motivation to Modify Youtsey Having considered and balanced the prior art for all that it teaches,” slip op. at 89
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable
“For these reasons, Patent Owner’s first objective indicia argument is” slip op. at 94
Patent outcomesUS 10,038,284 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,038,284 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 7, 2023 · IPR2022-00100 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8–10 and 15–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Piepgras, Michael, and Butler, with Schultz or Naskali added for claims 16 and 17.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner contends that there is “no meaningful dispute over [the definition of] a POSITA.” Reply 1. We agree. However, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill because we are persuaded that it is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’583 patent. In particular, Patent Owner’s definition requires experience with LED devices, whereas Petitioner’s definition makes LED experience optional (“experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design”). We note that the outcome of this decision would not have changed had we adopted Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties propose no constructions. Pet. 7; PO Resp 8–9; Reply 1. At institution, we discussed the meaning of the term “array.” Dec. 16 n.12. Patent Owner traverses this construction and submits that “no special construction for ‘LED array’ is needed,” as it does not dispute any limitation reciting an “LED circuit array.” See PO Resp. 9. We agree. Based on our review of the record, no terms need to be construed. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“fails to identify any deficiencies or drawbacks of Piepgras’s two-button remote control because the law does not require Petitioner to identify problems with a reference in order to establish obviousness. See PO Resp. 28–30; In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”). What the Petition must demonstrate is that there was some reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to combine the elements of the prior art in the manner proposed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Petition provides multiple, persuasive reasons (discussed above) as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use a touch screen, as disclosed in Butler, to permit user control of a remote control, as disclosed in Piepgras.” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues, and we agree, that the Piepgras-Michael-Butler combination discloses that the portable telecommunications device can detect a human touch. Pet. 43. Further, Dr. Baker testifies, and we agree, that a POSITA would have understood that the modified device “would use an LED touch display and thus when touched, the LED(s) of the display would change (e.g., turning on and/or changing interface content).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 141. We credit this testimony by Dr. Baker because it is well-supported by evidence. See, e.g., Exs. 1009 (Hack), 1022 (Gillespie); Pet. 43 (citing same).13 Patent Owner does not offer any contrary evidence that would undermine Dr. Baker’s persuasive testimony that a POSITA would have understood that the modified device would use an LED touch display and that when touched, the LED(s) of the display would change (and thus provide light). See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 105–16 (attacking the sufficiency of Petitioner’s evidence but not disputing Dr. Baker’s core assertion regarding the understanding of a POSITA). It is somewhat ironic that Patent Owner asserts that Dr. Baker’s testimony is “conclusory and not tied to supporting evidence.” Sur-reply 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 141). In reality, Petitioner supplies ample supporting evidence (e.g., Hack and Gillespie), but Patent Owner denies that we can consider it. See, e.g., Pet. 43 (citing, e.g., Exs. 1009, 1022); PO Resp. 44. Petitioner’s reliance on evidence to show the understanding of a skilled artisan is appropriate because “the obviousness ‘analysis requires an assessment of the . . . background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.’” Koninklijke Philips, 948 F.3d at 1337. Petitioner does not rely upon references such as Hack and Gillespie to supply a missing claim limitation.14 Rather, Petitioner relies on Butler’s disclosure of a touch screen for this limitation and points to Hack and Gillespie to show that prior art touch screens often included LED displays and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a touch screen would have provided 13 As we explain below, we need not rely on Swartz. 14 For this reason, Petitioner need not have included Swartz, Hack, or Gillespie in its ground listing, and Petitioner need not show a motivation to combine Swartz, Hack, or Gillespie with Piepgras, Michael, and Butler. light based upon detection of human touch. Reply 20; see also Pet. 43. Arendi is therefore inapposite because Petitioner’s detailed explanations and supporting evidence are the opposite of relying on “common sense” as a “wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support.” See 832 F.3d at 1362.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,750,583 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,750,583 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00052 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–5, 7, 11–13, 21, and 23 are unpatentable: claims 2–5, 7, 13, 21, and 23 as obvious over Birrell and Schultz; claims 11–12 as obvious over Piepgras and Kasegi.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party contends that any terms of the ’251 patent require express construction, with each party relying on the plain and ordinary meaning of each claim term. PO Resp. 13–14; Pet. Reply 1. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we agree that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“10A–C, the reflective coating is folded and shaped to form non-planar reflectors. Ex. 1046 ¶ 49; PO Resp. 15–16; Sur-Reply 4–5. We agree with Petitioner, however, that the reflector embodiments depicted in Figures 10A–C are just one potential way of utilizing a reflective layer in Schultz, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that use of an unfolded reflective layer is contemplated, and would be beneficial in, the planar embodiments of Schultz, such as the planar embodiment depicted in Figure 1. Pet. Reply 3–4, 7; Ex. 1046 ¶ 49 (“By using reflective surfaced materials, such as multilayered optical film, for the insulative layer 34 in the embodiments described herein, the light reflected from the attached LED dies has a higher probability of being reflected toward” a focusing element) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“to use a reflective coating or substrate in Birrell because “the use of a reflective substrate to provide mechanical support for an array of LEDs was well known in the art.” Pet. 14. Petitioner further contends that Schultz expressly discloses that reflective coatings are beneficial as they prevent light from an LED die being “unutilized due to absorption or scattering of the light.” Id. at 14–15 (quoting Ex. 1046 ¶ 48); Ex. 1046 ¶ 49 (Schultz explaining that “reflective surfaced materials” provide a “higher probability” that light reflected from the LEDs will reach the focusing element). Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a reflective substrate in Birrell in view of Birrell’s expressed desire for a uniform optical reflection to provide a uniform light source. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 1018, 6:6–18; Ex. 1022 ¶ 81; Ex. 1023, 16:16–45). Petitioner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a reflective substrate in Birrell because this would have entailed “the use of known components and mounting techniques to produce the predictable result of an LED circuit that benefited from known properties of reflective base structures, as suggested by Schultz and the knowledge of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 10,492,251 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,492,251 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 2, 2023 · IPR2022-00051 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 6 are unpatentable as obvious over Birrell and Schultz; the Board did not reach the Piepgras or Harbers and Schultz grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of the ’251 patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design, or a related field.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–24). For purposes of this proceeding, “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of [a person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 14. Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the prior art of record, and the ’251 patent, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim[s] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party contends that any terms of the ’251 patent require express construction, with each party relying on the plain and ordinary meaning of each claim term. PO Resp. 13–14; Pet. Reply 1. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“In view of the foregoing, we determine that Birrell and Schultz, when viewed in light of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, teach or suggest mounting “at least one LED circuit” “on a reflective substrate,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’251 patent.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“sought to use a reflective coating in Birrell because “the use of a reflective substrate to provide mechanical support for an array of LEDs was well known in the art.” Pet. 29. Petitioner further contends that Schultz expressly discloses that reflective coatings are beneficial as they prevent light from an LED die being “unutilized due to absorption or scattering of the light.” Id. at 30 (quoting Ex. 1046 ¶ 48); Ex. 1046 ¶ 49 (Schultz explaining that “reflective surfaced materials” provide a “higher probability” that light reflected from the LEDs will reach the focusing element). Petitioner further contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a reflective substrate in Birrell in view of Birrell’s expressed desire for a uniform optical reflection to provide a uniform light source. Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 104; Ex. 1018, 6:6–18; Ex. 1022 ¶ 81; Ex. 1023, 16:16–45). Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a reflective substrate in Birrell because this would have entailed “the use of known components and mounting techniques to produce the predictable result of an LED circuit that benefited from properties of reflective base structures, as suggested by Schultz and the knowledge of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. at 31.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,492,251 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,492,251 - Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 1, 2023 · IPR2019-00731 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Remand
Claim 28 is unpatentable under § 103(a) over Martin and Farley; Martin qualifies as prior art because Dr. Moran’s contribution made him a joint inventor of the relied-on disclosure.
RulingsRemand decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“we do not agree with Patent Owner that evidence analogous to that in Duncan Parking is required in this case or for Petitioner to meet its burden by stating which specific aspects of the Facilitator were conceived by Dr. Moran. PO Remand 3–4. As the Federal Circuit stated, the facilitator described in Section 4.5 of the Martin reference plays a central role in the OAA disclosed in the specification of the ’560 patent. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; see Ex. 1011, 23–24 (Section 4.5); Ex. 1001, 19:14–19:62. In addition, Patent Owner admits that “large portions of the ’560 application and the Martin reference are identical or almost identical.” PO Resp. 1. We find that Petitioner and Dr. Moran have sufficiently identified the facilitator in the Martin reference as his work, and persuasively asserted that Dr. Moran’s background and experience with OAA and distributed software systems support his contribution to the conception of the facilitator in the distributed agent approach of Sections 4.1–4.5. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23–39. Dr. Moran’s testimony provides sufficient and persuasive detail to support his contribution claim to the facilitator of Section 4.5. Id.” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“With respect to Dr. Moran’s contribution to the Martin reference, we find Dr. Moran’s testimony credible over that of Mr. Cheyer and Mr. Martin, because, as the Federal Circuit noted, because the latter testimony conflicts with other evidence of record. Google, 34 F.4th at 1088. Cheyer’s and Martin’s testimony that Dr. Moran’s role was administrative and non-technical with respect to the core infrastructure of OAA is belied by a separate article describing OAA that includes the facilitator and lists Dr. Moran as the lead author. Ex. 1174, 1–2, 4. Indeed, the OAA article lists Dr. Moran and Mr. Cheyer as authors but excludes Mr. Martin. Id. Although Mr. Cheyer disagrees with the article’s description of the origins of OAA and the facilitator (Ex. 2037, 78:23–79:12 (Mr. Cheyer asserting that he “would not agree in the characterization of Open Agent Architecture grew out of [earlier] works” as described in the article)), Mr. Cheyer admits patent]” (id. at 1088), “which is a continuation-in-part of the application that resulted in the ’115 patent” (id. at 1086). in his deposition that Dr. Moran was extremely technical, and probably made technical contributions to OAA (id. at 34:1–20, 64:16–20, 102:2–4). Similarly, Mr. Martin’s testimony also supports that Dr. Moran “may have made contributions to the technological development of either interfaces for use with OAA, agents used with OAA, or systems based on OAA.” Ex. 2038, 116:2–8, 117:7–119:10. When viewed in light of Dr. Moran’s status as a joint inventor on the closely related ’931 patent (Ex. 2002, code (75)) and as a lead author of the substantive paper that discusses OAA’s early development, we find Mr. Martin’s and Mr. Cheyer’s admissions—that Dr. Moran made technical contributions to OAA—undermine their testimony that Dr. Moran’s inclusion as an author on the Martin reference was a matter of administrative respect and not a result of a technical contribution. See PO Remand 11; PO Resp. 50–51. Indeed, we find Cheyer and Martin’s general description of Dr. Moran—as an administrator without technical contributions to the Martin reference—is not supported by the full record, which instead supports Dr. Moran’s contributions to technical work that involves the Martin reference, such as contemporary papers and the ’931 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1174, 2002. In sum, the testimony and contemporary evidence supports Dr. Moran’s testimony that his conception and contribution to the Martin reference, the facilitator, was technical and not merely administrative. Ex. 1007 ¶ 39.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention. Rather, we find that the Petition persuasively explains how Martin discloses a facilitator agent arranged to coordinate cooperative task completion within a distributed computing environment having autonomous service-providing electronic agents. Pet. 39; Ex. 1002 ¶ 100. Further, Petitioner persuasively demonstrates that Farley discloses how agent functionality can be distributed across multiple processes. Pet. 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 101–102. Finally, Petitioner also provides persuasive reasons as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Martin and Farley, including reasons expressly provided by Farley. Pet. 40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–104.” slip op. at 28
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE In our prior Final Written Decision, we denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) portions of Exhibit 1153; (2) Exhibits 1170, 1171, and 1172; (3) Exhibit 1174; and (4) portions of Exhibits 2037 and 2038; and we dismissed as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) Exhibits 1158 and 1159 and (2) Exhibits 1175, 1176, and 1181. Final Dec. 26–30. We maintain these determinations on remand.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 7,069,560 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,069,560 - Google LLC v. Ipa Technologies Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 1, 2023 · IPR2019-00728 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claim 63 unpatentable under § 103(a) over Martin and Kohn, finding Martin was prior art because Moran was a joint inventor.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner relies upon is sufficient to establish the degree to which the reliedon portions of the Martin reference were conceived by Dr. Moran, and the significance of those contributions to the overall anticipating disclosure of the Martin reference. See Google, 34 F.4th at 1086–88; Duncan Parking, 914 F.3d at 1358. Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner is not merely relying on Dr. Moran’s authorship to establish inventorship. PO Remand 8 (citing In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 455 (C.C.P.A. 1982)). Instead, Dr. Moran’s testimony establishes how his background led to his contributions to the multiple facilitator architectures disclosed in Martin and in the ’115 patent specification. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23– 34 (OAA project), 35–39 (OAA paper). In view of Dr. Moran’s testimony, we do not agree with Patent Owner that evidence analogous to that in Duncan Parking is required in this case or for Petitioner to meet its burden by stating which specific aspects of the Facilitator were conceived by Dr. Moran. PO Remand 3–4. As the Federal Circuit stated, the facilitator described in Section 4.5 of the Martin reference plays a central role in the OAA disclosed in the specification of the ’115 patent. Google, 34 F.4th at 1087; see Ex. 1011, 23–24 (Section 4.5); Ex. 1001, 18:56–19:36. In addition, Patent Owner admits that “large portions of the ’115 application and the Martin reference are identical or almost identical.” PO Resp. 1. We find that Petitioner and Dr. Moran have sufficiently identified the facilitator in the Martin reference as his work, and persuasively asserted that Dr. Moran’s background and experience with OAA and distributed software systems support his contribution to the conception of the facilitator in the distributed agent approach of Sections 4.1–4.5. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 23–39. Dr. Moran’s testimony provides sufficient and persuasive detail to support his contribution claim to the facilitator of Section 4.5. Id. Based on the record, the Federal Circuit’s remand squarely asks whether Dr. Moran’s stated contributions to the conception of the facilitator should be credited over Cheyer and Martin’s conflicting testimony regarding his lack of technical contribution. Google, 34 F.4th at 1088 (stating that “[t]he testimony of Dr. Moran, if credited, might well establish that he was a co-inventor of the particular portions of the Martin reference relied on by Google in, and relevant to, the challenge to particular claims”). When Dr. Moran’s testimony is viewed in combination with the supporting evidence,7 we find that incorporation of the facilitator in general, which is also found in the specification and claims, persuasively supports Dr. Moran’s testimony regarding his inventive contribution to the Martin reference. Specifically, we find Dr. Moran’s testimony persuasively supported and credible over the conflicting testimony and evidence offered by Mr. Cheyer and Mr. Martin. See Pet. Reply 12–13; Ex. 2038, 116:2–8, 117:7–119:10 (Cheyer admission that Dr. Moran made technical contributions to OAA); Ex. 2037, 34:1–20, 64:16–20, 102:2–4.” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“Upon weighing the parties’ testimony and evidence, we agree with Petitioner that sufficient evidence supports the technical contributions of Dr. Moran to OAA, including admissions by Mr. Martin that Dr. Moran made such contributions (see Ex. 2038, 116:2–116:8, 117:7–119:10; see also id. at 73:3–73:15); contemporaneous papers showing Dr. Moran’s contribution to the OAA including a facilitator (see Ex. 1170; Ex. 1174, 1– 2), and the ’931 patent (Ex. 2002). See Pet. Reply 5–7, 8, 12–13; Pet. Remand 11. In particular, Dr. Moran’s testimony establishes that he contributed to Section 4.5, the facilitator that plays an essential role in the OAA, that differs from prior art agents, and that is found in the ’115 specification. We find Dr. Moran’s contributions to be significant when measured against the full anticipating Martin reference, and to render him a joint inventor of the Martin reference. Google, 34 F.4th at 1085 (quoting Duncan Parking, 914 F.3d at 1358). 5. Conclusion Based on the full record, we find that Petitioner has provided persuasive evidence by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Moran is an inventive entity to the Martin reference. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established that Martin is “by another” and is prior art under § 102(a) to the ’115 patent. We next turn to the sole remaining ground based on the Martin reference to determine the patentability of the remaining challenged claim.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“combination of Martin and Kohn. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Olsen, provides persuasive testimony and evidence that Martin teaches compound goals and a skilled artisan would have been motivated in view of Kohn to modify Martin’s facilitator agent to interpret a compound goal that includes both local and global constraints. Pet. 32–34; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88. Dr. Olsen’s testimony does not evince hindsight, but instead supports the finding that an ordinarily skilled artisan could use compound goals required in Martin and apply the type of constraints (global and local) disclosed in Kohn. Ex. 2024, 159:4–160:16. In addition, Dr. Olsen testified, the proposed implementation “would have been a mere combination of known components and technologies . . . , according to known methods, to produce predictable results.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 87. We do not agree that this case presents the same technical issues raised in G.B.T. Inc. v. Walletex Microelectronics Ltd., IPR2018-00326, Paper 60 at 16–17 (PTAB June 25, 2019), where the petitioner’s declarant failed to show how the combination would have achieved desired results and features from the combination of the circuits. Here, Dr. Olsen identified known compound goals in Martin to which Kohn’s local and global constraints are applicable. Pet. 32–34; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88. In view of the level of skill in the art and the testimony of Dr. Olsen (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49, 77–88; Ex. 2024, 159:4–160:16), we find that Petitioner establishes persuasive motivation to combine the software teachings of Kohn’s constraints into the goals of Martin and how the references would have been combined by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 29
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMotion to exclude, grantedMixed
“III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE In our prior Final Written Decision, we denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) portions of Exhibit 1153; (2) Exhibits 1170, 1171, and 1172; (3) Exhibit 1174; and (4) portions of Exhibits 2037 and 2038; and we dismissed as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (1) Exhibits 1158 and 1159 and (2) Exhibits 1175, 1176, and 1181. Final Dec. 25–28. We maintain these determinations on remand.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,851,115
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.