- PTAB · Dec 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00947 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–8 on all petitioned grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1 over Brochure and Blunt.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For reasons provided below, we determine, on behalf of the Director (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)), that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We therefore institute the petitioned inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“to the ’471 patent “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in physics or engineering and experience with the installation of cable,” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4; Ex. 1002 ¶ 15. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’471 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). Therefore, we adopt it in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“terms need construction and the plain meaning can be applied.” Pet. 5. Petitioner asserts claim 4’s “means for releasably coupling” limitation (Ex. 1001, 12:21–27, pg. 20 (Cert. of Correction)) is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and Petitioner provides a corresponding construction. See Pet. 5–6. For reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner’s challenge to claim 1 provides a sufficient basis to justify institution of review regardless of claim 4, so we do not reach this claim construction issue at the present time. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (authorizing institution of inter partes review if there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims). Based on our review of the record at this preliminary stage, we determine no explicit construction of any claim term is needed to decide whether to institute review. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (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 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“have been motivated to implement a two-component reel structure, such as Blunt’s cable reel 34ʹʹ, within Brochure’s cable reel apparatus. See Pet. 28–34, 36–38, 49–52. This would have been done, according to Petitioner, in order to permit the user to “replenish the supply of cable in Brochure’s cable reel when it is exhausted in an environmentally friendly way.” Id. at 28 (emphasis added); Ex. 1002 ¶ 57. Petitioner points out that Brochure describes its system as being “Environmentally-Friendly,” and alleges that Blunt similarly describes how its two-component reel 34ʹʹ can “be replenished with a new supply of cable when the cable supply in the reel is exhausted such that the reel would be reused in ‘an environmentally friendly manner.’” Pet. 28–29 (quoting Ex. 1006; Ex. 1004 ¶ 107) (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19, 73, 89); Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Specifically, according to Petitioner, using Blunt’s replenishable two-component reel in Brochure “would be environmentally friendly because it would save cost and reduce waste since the entire cable reel does not have to be disposed.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 19; Ex. 1005, 1:21–25, 4:33–57, Fig. 6); Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Petitioner also asserts this modification could have been achieved with a reasonable expectation of success, given various similarities between Brochure’s and Blunt’s rotatable mounting of a cable reel, and related teachings in those and other prior art references. See Pet. 29–32; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 59–61. Petitioner further provides illustrations of how a person of ordinary skill in the art might have implemented this combination. See Pet. 32–34; Ex. 1002 ¶ 62. Upon review of the foregoing, we determine Petitioner’s contentions regarding the motivations that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to use, with a reasonable expectation of success, Blunt’s two-component cable reel structure within Brochure’s cable dispensing apparatus, are sufficiently articulated and supported by the evidence of record to justify institution of review.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,001,471 - TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 17, 2022 · IPR2021-00985 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1, 12–15, and 17–20 unpatentable as obvious, including over Hulkko and Gibson and over Gibson and Schiltz.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“preamble of claim 1, is not limiting. In particular, “cable modem” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claim 1, it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention, and “cable modem” is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner fails to raise any arguments on these issues to the contrary. Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “cable modem” is not limiting.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the construction of “frequency translation module,” but that is inapposite because none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of this term. Accordingly, we need not construe it expressly to resolve the present dispute between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“differently than the Federal Circuit in ParkerVision. Accordingly, because this specific issue of what amounts to “non-negligible amounts of energy” was already decided by the Federal Circuit, we construe this term to mean “energy in amounts that are distinguishable from noise.”30” slip op. at 55
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“argument regarding the second alternative persuasive. In particular, the distinction Patent Owner seeks to draw between Hulkko and Gibson generally, does not undermine Petitioners’ argument and evidence that the particular structures proposed for combination are substantially similar, operate in a similar manner, and would have been expected, by one of ordinary skill in the art, to function predictably and with a reasonable expectation of success, once combined. Notably, we find particularly persuasive Hulkko’s teaching to use its switched capacitors as a mixer to perform down-conversion, which is the same function as Gibson’s mixers. See Ex. 1004, 5:39–49 (“switched capacitor switching elements . . . are used to implement the mixer 11 which directly demodulates the IF-signal into a base-frequency signal”). Accordingly, we find that the combination of Hulkko and Gibson teaches element [1B] and that one of ordinary skill in the” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 7,292,835 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,292,835 - Snap Inc. v. Sanderling Management Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 31, 2022 · IPR2021-00780 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–16, 18, 19, 21–23, and 25–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Hogeg.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner, however, that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer with the passage from column 6 discussed by the parties. Indeed, the sentence at issue begins with the exact same term—“distribution rule”—and continues by explaining what that term “is.” See Ex. 1001, 6:13– 14 (“A distribution rule is a rule used in determining how to target a group of end-users . . . .” (emphasis added)); see also Ex. 1001, code (57) (the Abstract, providing that “[a] distribution rule is used to target a group of end users . . . ”). As argued by Patent Owner, this is sufficiently clear language to express an intent by the patentee to define that term. See PO Sur-reply 6 (citing Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (stating that “the word ‘is,’ again a term used here in the specification, may ‘signify that a patentee is serving as its own lexicographer’”); see also Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To act as a lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ and ‘clearly express an intent to redefine the term.’” (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Further, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the definition should include the rest of the passage in column 6 (i.e., the language from “for instance” to the end of the sentence). See Pet. Reply 4. By beginning with “for instance,” the express language of that portion of the sentence makes clear that it merely provides examples of “rule[s]” that fall within the definition previously provided in the sentence, as acknowledged by Petitioner and Mr. Parulski. Cf. id. (“The language following that clipped by [Patent Owner] (‘for instance . . . ’) is what provides ‘distribution rules’ examples.”); Parulski Reply Decl. ¶ 15 (“The language following that identified by [Patent Owner] (beginning with ‘for instance, a rule . . . ’) provides examples of what a ‘distribution rule’ may be.”).6 For these reasons, we construe “distribution rule” in elements 1b and 18c in the manner proposed by Patent Owner—“a rule used in determining how to target a group of end-users.”” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner discusses the term “digital media content processing function” in claims 1 and 18 (Pet. 21–23), but states that “the Board needn’t construe [that term] to determine patentability” (Pet. 23). We did not construe that term in the Decision on Institution (Dec. Inst. 26–27), and Patent Owner takes the position in the Response that that term still does not need construction (PO Resp. 11). We continue to agree with both parties that “digital media content processing function” need not be construed because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends, with accompanying declaration testimony, that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or the equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience in research, design, or development of mobile imaging systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 19. According to Petitioner, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more education and less experience, may also meet this standard.” Pet. 19–20 (citing Parulski Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 173–174). Prior to institution, Patent Owner did not address or dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition, stating that it “appear[ed] consistent with the record at th[at] stage of the proceeding, including the prior art.” Dec. Inst. 26. In the Response, Patent Owner also does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp 10–11. We maintain the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted as of institution.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“The record supports Petitioner’s argument that the system in Hogeg “targets a group of end-users” in that it assesses which of the users are, for example, at a specific location and then sends only those users a visual editing function relevant to the users’ location. For example, in a passage cited by Petitioner as to a “conditional selection process to select/distribute a subset of functions” (Pet. 33), Hogeg discloses that “if the positional data is indicative that the visual content was captured in New York, a visual content editing function which provides an overlay of the statue of liberty and/ or a sound overlay of the song New York [N]ew York may be provided.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 58, cited at Pet. 33. This system “target[s] a group of end-users” in New York based on sensor data in that other end-users—such as ones indicated as being in California—do not receive the New York overlay. Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Hogeg’s process in that the content editing functions are sent in response to image selection by the user. See PO Resp. 16 (“Thus, what Hogeg discloses is a process for sending content editing functions ad hoc based on the characteristics of specific pieces of content that are manually identified by a user. Nothing in Hogeg, however, teaches a system or process capable of targeting a group of end-users based on a sensor data condition from their mobile devices.”). This distinction, however, is not supported by the claims. Elements 1b and 18c require a certain type of “distribution rule”— specifically one “defining a sensor data condition”—which Hogeg teaches for the reasons discussed above, but the claims do not preclude a user initiating the overall process with selection of an image. Stated differently (by Petitioner in the Reply), “whatever initiates Hogeg’s process makes no difference to Hogeg’s ‘distribution rules’” because “Hogeg’s content editing functions are still distributed according to, for example, client terminal location . . . and therefore Hogeg still uses distribution rules that target end users (e.g., users at a particular location).” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Parulski Reply Decl. ¶ 40)).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 10,108,986 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,108,986 - PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 24, 2022 · IPR2022-00831 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 9–19 because Patent Owner effectively disclaimed all challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“claims challenged in a petition, no inter partes review is instituted. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Co., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (precedential); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“The patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. [§] 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”). For a disclaimer to be recorded in the Office, the disclaimer must: (1) Be signed by the patentee, or an attorney or agent of record; (2) Identify the patent and complete claim or claims, or term being disclaimed. . . . ; (3) State the present extent of patentee’s ownership interest in the patent; and (4) Be accompanied by the fee set forth in [37 C.F.R.] § 1.20(d). 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a); see also Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp., 162 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding § 253 disclaimer is immediately “recorded” on the date the USPTO receives a disclaimer meeting the requirements of § 1.321(a), and no further action is required in the USPTO).” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 10,589,957 - Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 30, 2022 · IPR2021-00346 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 6–9, 12, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Downey and Sedra, with Hahnel added for claims 6–9 and 17–20.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“second sentence using the pronoun “it” and specifically states that “[t]ypically” the type of input that may control the switch is “an electrical or electronic input.” This sentence is important at least because the patentees chose to describe these control inputs as “typically.” The use of “typically,” in this context, is non-limiting. In other words, the ’108 patent expressly leaves open the option that the described switch may be controlled with an input that is not electrical or electronic. The fourth, and final, sentence of this paragraph is critical. It specifically states that “[i]f the switch is controlled by an electronic signal, it is typically a different signal than the signals connected to either terminal of the switch.” This sentence is significant for several reasons. First, by stating “if the switch is controlled by an electronic signal” (emphasis added), the Specification reaffirms that the switch may be controlled by an input that is not an electronic signal. Second, reading the sentence as a whole, it states that “[i]f the switch is controlled by an electronic signal, it is typically a different signal than the signals connected to either terminal of the switch” (emphasis added). To clarify, a signal that is different than the signals connected to either terminal of the switch is what the parties refer to as “an independent control signal.” Thus, the fourth sentence, in the context of the parties’ dispute, means that if the switch is controlled by an electronic signal, it is typically an independent control signal. The same meaning of “typically” applies here, i.e., it is non-limiting. Thus, if the first part of the sentence that provides the conditional clause (if) is met, i.e., the switch is controlled by an electronic signal, the electronic signal is not always an independent control signal because typically does not require always. Putting the discussion above into context, particularly in comparison to the construction advocated by Patent Owner, it is important to recognize that the lexicographic definition does not require a switch to be “dictated by an independent control input” because the definition specifically says that if the switch is controlled by an electronic control signal it is typically a different signal (i.e., an independent signal). Thus, Patent Owner’s proposed construction seeks to limit the term “switch” to what is expressly stated in the Specification as typical.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“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 had at least a bachelor’s degree in 5 Neither party presents evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of radio frequency circuit design.” Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have: (a) a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical or computer engineering (or a related academic field), and at least two (2) additional years of experience in the design and development of radio frequency circuits and/or systems, or (b) at least five (5) years of experience and training in the design and development of radio frequency circuits and/or systems.” PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2022 ¶ 20). We determine that the two proposed levels are closely aligned and are consistent with the ’108 patent and the asserted prior art.6 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). We adopt the following level in determining the patentability of the challenged claims: a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a related subject, and two years of experience in the field of radio frequency circuit design and development.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Downey alone discloses this limitation. As discussed above, Patent Owner argues at length about why inverter U5A in Downey’s frequency tripler circuit is not configured as a switch and does not operate as a switch. Patent Owner’s arguments are based on the specific circuit components shown in Downey’s frequency tripler circuit and characteristics of the MM74C04 inverter. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s contention that the combination of Downey and Sedra also teaches this limitation, except to argue that Sedra’s inverter when combined with Downey “would not change the operation of Downey’s frequency tripler circuit,” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have to ignore all of the disclosure in Downey, and abandon all of the teachings and suggestions of Downey” to combine the two references. PO Resp. 49–50. Patent Owner therefore does not meaningfully address Petitioner’s proposed combination. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art”) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). The claims require “a first switch configured to up-convert.” Sedra specifically discloses a switch used to implement an inverter, and also states that an “inverter is basically a voltage-controlled switch”—disclosure that Patent Owner does not dispute. See Ex. 1004, 908–09, Fig. 13.2. Patent Owner also does not dispute that Downey’s frequency tripler circuit includes an inverter that upconverts the input signal. Ex. 1003, 4:8–13. Patent Owner’s arguments are directed to the inverter U5A that operates as a non-linear amplifier, as disclosed in Downey. PO Resp. 46–50. Patent Owner specifically argues “[i]nverter U5A in the frequency tripler circuit of Downey is not configured as a switch, nor can it be without rendering the circuit unsuitable for its intended purpose.” PO Resp. 48. But Sedra’s inverter is a switch. Patent Owner does not explain why a switch-based inverter would not work in Downey to accomplish the up-conversion.” slip op. at 39
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Decided for petitioner
“IV. PETITIONER’S OBJECTION TO PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVES At the oral hearing, Petitioner objected to Patent Owner’s demonstratives 81 and 82 (see Paper 30) as containing new arguments that were not previously presented by Patent Owner. Tr. 6:17–7:1. Petitioner argued that those demonstratives contain testimony from Dr. van der Weide that Patent Owner did not cite in its Sur-reply and address an issue that was not presented in Patent Owner’s Response. Id. Patent Owner did not rely on those demonstratives during the oral hearing. Id. at 8:10–15 (Patent Owner’s counsel stating that he may not refer to those demonstratives during the hearing). We therefore dismiss Petitioner’s objection as moot.21” slip op. at 70
Patent outcomesUS 8,190,108 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,190,108 - Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 2, 2022 · IPR2021-00187 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable as obvious over Moses; the Board did not reach the alternative Levesque ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- 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 field of vehicle telematics systems.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–27). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art” for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 8. We find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’335 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.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). The claim construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, we take into account the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–17. However, only terms that are in controversy need to be expressly construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (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)). Petitioner contends that the terms in the Challenged Claims are properly understood to have their ordinary and customary meaning. Pet. 2. Patent Owner does not dispute this contention. See generally PO Resp. Therefore, because no controversy regarding claim construction exits, it is not necessary for us to construe expressly any claim term.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“attempts to map to the CVP System (see PO Resp. 56–59)—Petitioner has established that Moses discloses or suggests the subject matter of those claims. The proposed combinations are not based on hindsight reconstruction; rather, they are straightforward and logical. Moses indisputably discloses a response management system with automated rule-based alert notifications and response deployment capabilities. The only arguable differences Patent Owner alleges are whether Moses discloses storing information about something happening/occurrence versus more general information and whether Moses discloses providing responses that recommend a particular action be taken versus responses that are merely informational. We find Petitioner’s evidence from Moses to be particularly strong that a skilled artisan would have known to store information about occurrences and provide responses including recommended actions. Thus, for all the reasons discussed above (supra § III.B.1) and here, we give Petitioner’s evidence of obviousness substantial weight. Additionally, we disagree with most of Patent Owner’s arguments in response and we do not give Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness substantial weight for the reasons discussed above (supra § III.C). But, even if we were to have found that Patent Owner established a nexus, given its tenuous connection to the only difference Patent Owner alleges to exist between the systems disclosed by the prior art and the claimed invention, we find that the evidentiary weight favoring obviousness significantly outweighs the most probative weight that could be given to the objective evidence presented. We also find that the balance weighs strongly in Petitioner’s favor regarding claims 2–7, 9–16, and 18–22 for the same reasons discussed above and additionally because Patent Owner has not established that the CVP System practices any of these claims or that there is a nexus between the objective indicia of nonobviousness and any of these claims. Accordingly, on balance, considering the complete record before us, Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–22 of the ’335 patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 52
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“As stated in Fox Factory, “presuming nexus is appropriate when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373 (quotations omitted). Patent Owner does not assert that the CVP System is entitled to a presumption of nexus. See generally PO Resp. 55–61. Furthermore, Patent Owner does not provide any evidence or argument to even suggest that the CVP System and the claimed invention are coextensive. Id. Exhibit 2015 evidences that the CVP System includes a myriad of features that would allegedly provide important benefits to its customers. Therefore, Patent Owner is not entitled to a presumption of nexus because, even presuming the CVP System incorporates the patented invention, it cannot be disputed that the claimed invention is only one of many components included in the CVP System. See generally Ex. 2015. Of course, our nexus inquiry does not end there because Patent Owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the alleged commercial success achieved with the CVP System is in some way a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention. But on this front, Patent Owner again fails to provide any foundational basis to establish a link between the claimed invention and the evidence of commercial success. Instead, Patent Owner simply states, “[b]ecause the [CVP System] embodies all the limitations of the independent claims of the ’335 patent, sufficient nexus exists between [Patent Owner’s] commercial success and the claims.” PO Resp. 55. And after Petitioner pointed out that Patent Owner had failed to establish any specific link between the claimed invention and commercial success evidence (Pet. Reply 25–26), Patent Owner responded as follows: “It is not necessary, however, that the patented invention be solely responsible for the commercial success, in order for this factor to be given weight appropriate to the evidence, along with other pertinent factors.” Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Oren Techs., LLC v. Proppant Express Invs. LLC, No. 2019-1778, 2021 WL 3120819, at *7 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2021). As [Patent Owner] explained, [Petitioner’s CVP System] is commercially successful at least in part due to the advertised remote vehicle monitoring functionality. See Exs. 2016-2023. This is more than adequate to establish commercial success. Oren Techs, 2021 WL 3120819, at *7. PO Sur-reply 25–26. Patent Owner has not persuasively shown by a preponderance of the” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 9,147,335 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,147,335 - Airbus Americas, Inc. v. Harper Engineering CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00195 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Moreover, a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art in light of the subject matter of the ’244 patent, which is not limited to “aeronautical” or “aerospace” applications, claims a “stowage bin assembly” and a “hinge assembly,” and expressly refers broadly to “transportation vehicles” as typically including “overhead storage compartments,” identifying “airplanes” only as an “example” of a “transportation vehicle.” Ex. 1001, code (57), 1:12–15, 7:31–8:64. Patent Owner’s argument appears to be no more than a transparent attempt to baselessly suggest that Dr. Codd should be excluded from testifying because he lacks “the proper background or sufficient experience in the field” under Patent Owner’s unreasonable proposed level of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Dr. Dershowitz’s testimony in support of Patent Owner on the level of ordinary skill is not credible because it is inconsistent with the ’244 patent and the asserted art. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 58–63. For example, Dr. Dershowitz acknowledges that “[h]inges are common to many mechanical systems,” but then suggests “being familiar with hinges in general may not directly apply to the specifics of this invention” without identifying anything “specific” to the ’244 patent that requires the level of skill Dr. Dershowitz endorses. Id. ¶ 62. Dr. Dershowitz suggests “hinges used in storage solutions that are stationary have fewer requirements related to mass and volume and are not subject to the same forces and stresses that are experienced on an aircraft,” however, the challenged claims of the ’244 patent do not preclude “stationary” storage solutions, do not require anything pertaining to “mass and volume,” and are not required to withstand any “forces and stresses” experienced on an aircraft. Dr. Dershowitz’s opinion that “[d]ue to the unique environment and specialized nature of the technology at issue” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have needed “to have an educational background and experience that is specific to the aerospace field” is not supported by the ’244 patent or the asserted art. See id. ¶ 63; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 2 (Rheaume stating it “relates to a hinge assembly and, more particularly to a hinge assembly for retaining a door of a storage bin”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 2 (Savian stating it “relates generally to overhead storage bin assemblies”); Ex. 1008, 3:24–27 (Frazier stating it discloses “improvements to standard luggage and storage bins commonly found in commercial aircraft as well as other aircraft, buses, passenger vans, and other vehicles”). Dr. Dershowitz’s misapprehension of the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art is a consideration we apply in weighing his opinion of how a” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Dershowitz’s testimony in support of Patent Owner on the level of ordinary skill is not credible because it is inconsistent with the ’244 patent and the asserted art. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 58–63. For example, Dr. Dershowitz acknowledges that “[h]inges are common to many mechanical systems,” but then suggests “being familiar with hinges in general may not directly apply to the specifics of this invention” without identifying anything “specific” to the ’244 patent that requires the level of skill Dr. Dershowitz endorses. Id. ¶ 62. Dr. Dershowitz suggests “hinges used in storage solutions that are stationary have fewer requirements related to mass and volume and are not subject to the same forces and stresses that are experienced on an aircraft,” however, the challenged claims of the ’244 patent do not preclude “stationary” storage solutions, do not require anything pertaining to “mass and volume,” and are not required to withstand any “forces and stresses” experienced on an aircraft. Dr. Dershowitz’s opinion that “[d]ue to the unique environment and specialized nature of the technology at issue” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have needed “to have an educational background and experience that is specific to the aerospace field” is not supported by the ’244 patent or the asserted art. See id. ¶ 63; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 2 (Rheaume stating it “relates to a hinge assembly and, more particularly to a hinge assembly for retaining a door of a storage bin”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 2 (Savian stating it “relates generally to overhead storage bin assemblies”); Ex. 1008, 3:24–27 (Frazier stating it discloses “improvements to standard luggage and storage bins commonly found in commercial aircraft as well as other aircraft, buses, passenger vans, and other vehicles”). Dr. Dershowitz’s misapprehension of the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art is a consideration we apply in weighing his opinion of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the prior art at issue.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that no claim terms require construction. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–66). Patent Owner proposes an express construction for “stowage bin door” and “self-opening mechanism.” Prelim. Resp. 13– 17. We find no claim term requires an express construction in reaching our decision for the reasons below to deny institution of inter partes review. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,801,244 - Airbus Americas, Inc. v. Harper Engineering CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00192 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 2–6 or 12–17 were unpatentable; claims 1 and 7–11 had been disclaimed.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“obvious over Rheaume and Savian. Pet. 32–51. Each of claims 2–6 and 12–17 requires a “hinge assembly” that includes “a self-opening mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–8:8, 8:27–64. Petitioner relies only upon Savian as teaching a “self-opening mechanism.” Pet. 32–34, 45. We focus our discussion on the “self-opening mechanism” limitation because it is dispositive and, for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Savian teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“More importantly, Petitioner provides no sufficient reasoning and cites no support for construing the required “self-opening mechanism” to be so broad as to include a mechanism that provides “only some damping against gravity to be ‘self-opening.’” Reply 2. We agree with Patent Owner that, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, a component that only opposes opening is not a “self-opening mechanism.” See Sur-reply 2. In short, as shown by Patent Owner, the plain and ordinary meaning of “self-opening mechanism” in the context of the ’315 patent, as required by claims 2–6 and 12–17, is a mechanism that acts on its own accord to open the stowage bin door. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2006). An express construction of any other claim term is not necessary for” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“obvious over Rheaume and Savian. Pet. 32–51. Each of claims 2–6 and 12–17 requires a “hinge assembly” that includes “a self-opening mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 7:47–8:8, 8:27–64. Petitioner relies only upon Savian as teaching a “self-opening mechanism.” Pet. 32–34, 45. We focus our discussion on the “self-opening mechanism” limitation because it is dispositive and, for the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Savian teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 21
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“9 Patent Owner also argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) to deny institution of inter partes review. Prelim. Resp. 36–46. We deny institution of inter partes review for the reasons provided above and, therefore, do not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,760,315 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Divx, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Mar 17, 2022 · IPR2021-01476 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1 and 10 on both § 103 grounds: Biderman with Gigliotti, and Sood, Myers, Casalena, Nilsson, and Ma.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. Based on the information presented in the Petition and the supporting evidence, we are persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- 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 had a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related scientific field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with streaming media applications or related fields (e.g., network applications),” where a “lack of experience can be remedied with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, a lack of education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 4-5 years).” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–51). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. We determine, on the current record, that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the ’987 patent and the asserted prior art. 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). We adopt that level in deciding whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In this inter partes review, claims are construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). The claim construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, we take into account the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–17. 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). Neither party contends that any claim term requires express construction. Pet. 10; see generally Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, we do not expressly construe any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner sufficiently shows that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teachings of Biderman and Gigliotti. Pet. 30–33. Patent Owner’s arguments misconstrue Petitioner’s contentions regarding the benefits of the combination. Petitioner contends that Biderman describes that its technique “allows the client device to switch between the versions of the program without a substantial interruption of the program” at a transition point by storing content in a buffer, but a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that, without a technique for measuring the amount of content in the buffer, Biderman’s client might switch to the second playlist content without sufficient content stored in the buffer, which might result in an interrupted stream of media, contrary to its goals. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶ 140) (emphasis added). Petitioner acknowledges that Biderman teaches the transition without a substantial interruption, but argues Biderman does not account for sufficient second playlist content stored in the buffer. Petitioner’s claimed motivation is different than just avoiding substantial interruptions during streaming, i.e., Petitioner’s claimed improvement from Gigliotti’s technique relates to interruption that may come later, after the transition to the second playlist. According to Petitioner, Gigliotti’s technique of measuring buffer fill levels before switching occurs ensures an uninterrupted or substantially uninterrupted stream of media, thereby improving Biderman’s client device and system. Id. at 32 (citing Ex. 1020 ¶ 13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122–125). Gigliotti’s selection of the most appropriate available bit rate for the stream to provide uninterrupted streaming is based on Gigliotti’s heuristics module’s statistical analysis of the buffer’s activity and the buffer’s fill level. See supra § III.E.1.f; Ex. 1020 ¶ 42. Accordingly, on the current record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s motivation to combine Gigliotti’s technique is based on adding Gigliotti’s heuristics module functionality to Biderman. See Pet. 32. Petitioner’s contention that there would be a reasonable likelihood of success in doing so is supported by Dr. Reddy’s testimony. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–126 (citing Ex. 1009, 5). For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, we determine Petitioner provides an adequate reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Biderman and Gigliotti in the manner asserted by Petitioner, with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 30–32.” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,326,987 - Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01302 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 were not determined unpatentable because the asserted Larson and Larson–Butler grounds did not teach sampling.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Neither party contends that the differences in proposals affect the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art from the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’474 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include the specifics from option (b) of Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because the parties agree that the claims remaining in the trial require “sampling” and also agree that the prior art asserted in this case does not teach “sampling” (as discussed further below), we need not construe these terms expressly to resolve the controversy before us. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. sampling Although claim 1 does not recite “sampling” expressly, the post- institution briefs make clear that the parties agree that claim 1 and its dependent claims require sampling. In particular, Patent Owner contends, (1) “the ’474 patent pertains to a technique called sampling, which involves the use of a ‘switch’” (PO Resp. 2); (2) “all of the challenged claims are directed to a sampling system and, in particular, an energy sampling system (also known as an energy transfer system)” (id.); and (3) “[t]he challenged claims only cover energy sampling and the use of switches” (id. at 20). In its Reply, although Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claims as limited to energy sampling (i.e., energy transfer systems) (Pet. Reply 3–7), Petitioner contends that based on its “subsequent analysis of [Patent Owner’s] foundational ’551 patent—one of the multiple patents which the ’474 patent incorporates by reference—[Petitioner] now agrees with [Patent Owner] that the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling.” Pet. Reply 2. Thus, at a minimum, the parties agree that the claims at issue in this proceeding require sampling.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 7,539,474 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,539,474
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.